Algorithmic indexing in MEDLINE frequently overlooks important concepts and may compromise literature search results.

IF 5.1 4区 医学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Journal of the Medical Library Association Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI:10.5195/jmla.2025.1936
Alexandre Amar-Zifkin, Taline Ekmekjian, Virginie Paquet, Tara Landry
{"title":"Algorithmic indexing in MEDLINE frequently overlooks important concepts and may compromise literature search results.","authors":"Alexandre Amar-Zifkin, Taline Ekmekjian, Virginie Paquet, Tara Landry","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2025.1936","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the appropriateness of indexing of algorithmically-indexed MEDLINE records.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We assessed the conceptual appropriateness of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) used to index a sample of MEDLINE records from February and March 2023. Indexing was performed by the Medical Text Indexer-Auto (MTIA) algorithm. The primary outcome measure is the number of records for which the MTIA algorithm assigned subject headings that represented the main concepts of the publication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-three percent of screened records had indexing that represented the main concepts discussed in the article; 47% had inadequacies in the indexing which could impact their retrieval. Three main issues with algorithmically-indexed records were identified: 1) inappropriate MeSH assigned due to acronyms, evocative language, exclusions of populations, or related records; 2) concepts represented by more general MeSH while a more precise MeSH is available; and 3) a significant concept not represented in the indexing at all. We also noted records with inappropriate combinations of headings and subheadings, even when the headings and subheadings on their own were appropriate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The indexing performed by the February-March 2023 calibration of the MTIA algorithm, as well as older calibrations, frequently applied irrelevant or imprecise terms to publications while neglecting to apply relevant terms. As a consequence, relevant publications may be omitted from search results and irrelevant ones may be retrieved. Evaluations and revisions of indexing algorithms should strive to ensure that relevant, accurate and precise MeSH terms are applied to MEDLINE records.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"113 1","pages":"39-48"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11835047/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2025.1936","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the appropriateness of indexing of algorithmically-indexed MEDLINE records.

Methods: We assessed the conceptual appropriateness of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) used to index a sample of MEDLINE records from February and March 2023. Indexing was performed by the Medical Text Indexer-Auto (MTIA) algorithm. The primary outcome measure is the number of records for which the MTIA algorithm assigned subject headings that represented the main concepts of the publication.

Results: Fifty-three percent of screened records had indexing that represented the main concepts discussed in the article; 47% had inadequacies in the indexing which could impact their retrieval. Three main issues with algorithmically-indexed records were identified: 1) inappropriate MeSH assigned due to acronyms, evocative language, exclusions of populations, or related records; 2) concepts represented by more general MeSH while a more precise MeSH is available; and 3) a significant concept not represented in the indexing at all. We also noted records with inappropriate combinations of headings and subheadings, even when the headings and subheadings on their own were appropriate.

Conclusions: The indexing performed by the February-March 2023 calibration of the MTIA algorithm, as well as older calibrations, frequently applied irrelevant or imprecise terms to publications while neglecting to apply relevant terms. As a consequence, relevant publications may be omitted from search results and irrelevant ones may be retrieved. Evaluations and revisions of indexing algorithms should strive to ensure that relevant, accurate and precise MeSH terms are applied to MEDLINE records.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
MEDLINE中的算法索引经常忽略重要的概念,并可能损害文献搜索结果。
目的:评价MEDLINE算法索引记录标引的适宜性。方法:我们评估了医学主题标题(MeSH)用于索引2023年2月至3月MEDLINE记录样本的概念适宜性。通过医学文本自动索引(MTIA)算法进行索引。主要结果测量是MTIA算法分配的代表出版物主要概念的主题标题的记录数量。结果:53%的筛选记录具有代表文章中讨论的主要概念的索引;47%的文献在标引方面存在不足,这可能会影响其检索。确定了算法索引记录的三个主要问题:1)由于首字母缩略词、唤起性语言、排除种群或相关记录而分配不适当的MeSH;2)由更一般的MeSH表示的概念,同时提供更精确的MeSH;3)一个在索引中根本没有体现的重要概念。我们还注意到标题和副标题组合不当的记录,即使标题和副标题本身是适当的。结论:MTIA算法的2023年2月至3月校准以及较早的校准所进行的索引,经常在出版物中应用不相关或不精确的术语,而忽略了应用相关术语。因此,相关的出版物可以从搜索结果中省略,而不相关的出版物可以被检索。索引算法的评估和修订应努力确保相关、准确和精确的MeSH术语应用于MEDLINE记录。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the Medical Library Association
Journal of the Medical Library Association INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship. The most current impact factor for the JMLA (from the 2007 edition of Journal Citation Reports) is 1.392.
期刊最新文献
124th Annual Conference, Medical Library Association, Inc., Portland, OR, May 18-21, 20242024 Annual Business Meeting and Presidential Inaugural Address, June 5, 2024. Evaluating search quality and article choice in evidence-based medicine assignments of preclinical students. "Is this professionally correct?": understanding the criteria nurses use to evaluate information. Evaluation of an online systematic review escape room for early career clinicians and doctoral students. Academic librarian support for patient-centred and inclusive medical education curricula: a case report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1