Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40540614›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025

Evaluating and Improving Syndrome Differentiation Thinking Ability in Large Language Models: Method Development Study.

Chunliang Chen, Xinyu Wang, Ming Guan, Wenjing Yue, Yuanbin Wu, Ya Zhou, Xiaoling Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Chunliang ChenEast China Normal University, No.3663 Zhongshanbei Road, Shanghai, China, 86 18621306726.ORCID 0009-0002-2932-6357
Xinyu WangEast China Normal University, No.3663 Zhongshanbei Road, Shanghai, China, 86 18621306726.ORCID 0009-0005-1948-5065
Ming GuanEast China Normal University, No.3663 Zhongshanbei Road, Shanghai, China, 86 18621306726.ORCID 0009-0001-2303-8330
Wenjing YueEast China Normal University, No.3663 Zhongshanbei Road, Shanghai, China, 86 18621306726.ORCID 0009-0006-6079-991X
Yuanbin WuEast China Normal University, No.3663 Zhongshanbei Road, Shanghai, China, 86 18621306726.ORCID 0009-0009-5670-4940
Ya ZhouGuangxi Key Laboratory of Trusted Software, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin, China.ORCID 0009-0007-9488-7712
Xiaoling WangEast China Normal University, No.3663 Zhongshanbei Road, Shanghai, China, 86 18621306726.ORCID 0000-0002-4594-6946

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A large language model (LLM) provides new opportunities to advance the intelligent development of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Syndrome differentiation thinking is an essential part of TCM and equipping LLMs with this capability represents a crucial step toward more effective clinical applications of TCM. However, given the complexity of TCM syndrome differentiation thinking, acquiring this ability is a considerable challenge for the model. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the ability of LLMs for syndrome differentiation thinking and design a method to effectively enhance their performance in this area. Methods: We decomposed the process of syndrome differentiation thinking in TCM into three core tasks: pathogenesis inference, syndrome inference, and diagnostic suggestion. To evaluate the performance of LLMs in these tasks, we constructed a high-quality evaluation dataset, forming a reliable foundation for quantitative assessment of their capabilities. Furthermore, we developed a methodology for generating instruction data based on the idea of an "open-book exam," customized three data templates, and dynamically retrieved task-relevant professional knowledge that was inserted into predefined positions within the templates. This approach effectively generates high-quality instruction data that aligns with the unique characteristics of TCM syndrome differentiation thinking. Leveraging this instruction data, we fine-tuned the base model, enhancing the syndrome differentiation thinking ability of the LLMs. Results: We collected 200 medical cases for the evaluation dataset and standardized them into three types of task questions. We tested general and TCM-specific LLMs, comparing their performance with our proposed solution. The findings demonstrated that our method significantly enhanced LLMs' syndrome differentiation thinking. Our model achieved 85.7% in Task 1 and 81.2% accuracy in Task 2, surpassing the best-performing TCM and general LLMs by 26.3% and 15.8%, respectively. In Task 3, our model achieved a similarity score of 84.3, indicating that the model was remarkably similar to advice given by experts. Conclusions: Existing general LLMs and TCM-specific LLMs continue to have significant limitations in the core task of syndrome differentiation thinking. Our research shows that fine-tuning LLMs by designing professional instruction templates and generating high-quality instruction data can significantly improve their performance on core tasks. The optimized LLMs show a high degree of similarity in reasoning results, consistent with the opinions of domain experts, indicating that they can simulate syndrome differentiation thinking to a certain extent. These findings have important theoretical and practical significance for in-depth interpretation of the complexity of the clinical diagnosis and treatment process of TCM.

Indexed as

LanguageMedicine, Chinese TraditionalThinkingDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansLarge Language ModelsSyndromeinstruction tuninglarge language modelRAGsyndrome differentiation thinkingTCM LLMstraditional Chinese medicine

Identifiers

PMID40540614
PMCPMC12204376

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.