Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28231809›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2017

12 years on - Is the NLM medical text indexer still useful and relevant?

James Mork, Alan Aronson, Dina Demner-Fushman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Publication Type Tagging using Transformer Models and Multi-Label Classification.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Publication Type Tagging using Transformer Models and Multi-Label Classification.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Dr. Lindberg and scholarly publishing.Information services & use · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

James MorkUS National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, USA. jmork@mail.nlm.nih.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0346-1350
Alan AronsonUS National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, USA.
Dina Demner-FushmanUS National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, USA.

Funding

Semantic indexing of biomedical publications and clinical textZIALM010005 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI DEMNER-FUSHMAN, DINA · 2016 to 2020
$4.0M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFacing a growing workload and dwindling resources, the US National Library of Medicine (NLM) created the Indexing Initiative project in 1996. This cross-library team's mission is to explore indexing methodologies for ensuring quality and currency of NLM document collections. The NLM Medical Text Indexer (MTI) is the main product of this project and has been providing automated indexing recommendations since 2002. After all of this time, the questions arise whether MTI is still useful and relevant.

methodsTo answer the question about MTI usefulness, we track a wide variety of statistics related to how frequently MEDLINE indexers refer to MTI recommendations, how well MTI performs against human indexing, and how often MTI is used. To answer the question of MTI relevancy compared to other available tools, we have participated in the 2013 and 2014 BioASQ Challenges. The BioASQ Challenges have provided us with an unbiased comparison between the MTI system and other systems performing the same task.

resultsIndexers have continually increased their use of MTI recommendations over the years from 15.75% of the articles they index in 2002 to 62.44% in 2014 showing that the indexers find MTI to be increasingly useful. The MTI performance statistics show significant improvement in Precision (+0.2992) and F

conclusionsBased on our findings, yes, MTI is still relevant and useful, and needs to be improved and expanded. The BioASQ Challenge results have shown that we need to incorporate more machine learning into MTI while still retaining the indexing rules that have earned MTI the indexers' trust over the years. We also need to expand MTI through the use of full text, when and where it is available, to provide coverage of indexing terms that are typically only found in the full text. The role of MTI at NLM is also expanding into new areas, further reinforcing the idea that MTI is increasingly useful and relevant.

Indexed as

Abstracting and IndexingNational Library of Medicine (U.S.)HumansMachine LearningMedical Subject HeadingsUnited StatesBioASQIndexing methodsMachine learningMEDLINEMeSHText categorization

Identifiers

PMID28231809
PMCPMC5324252

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.