ArticlePloS one2024
Manual versus machine: How accurately does the Medical Text Indexer (MTI) classify different document types into disease areas?
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated indexing in MEDLINE and the Medical Text Indexer (MTI), 2000-2025: a scoping review.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- Sometimes the apple does fall far from the tree: a case study on automatic indexing precision errors in PubMed.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025Article
- Algorithmic indexing in MEDLINE frequently overlooks important concepts and may compromise literature search results.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025Article
- Towards multiple ontologies in science mapping. A tribute to Loet Leydesdorff.Scientometrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) thesaurus is a controlled vocabulary developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) for classifying journal articles. It is increasingly used by researchers studying medical innovation to classify text into disease areas and other categories. Although this process was once manual, human indexers are now assisted by algorithms that automate some of the indexing process. NLM has made one of their algorithms, the Medical Text Indexer (MTI), available to researchers. MTI can be used to easily assign MeSH descriptors to arbitrary text, including from document types other than publications. However, the reliability of extending MTI to other document types has not been studied directly. To assess this, we collected text from grants, patents, and drug indications, and compared MTI's classification to expert manual classification of the same documents. We examined MTI's recall (how often correct terms were identified) and found that MTI identified 78% of expert-classified MeSH descriptors for grants, 78% for patents, and 86% for drug indications. This high recall could be driven merely by excess suggestions (at an extreme, all diseases being assigned to a piece of text); therefore, we also examined precision (how often identified terms were correct) and found that most MTI outputs were also identified by expert manual classification: precision was 53% for grant text, 73% for patent text, and 64% for drug indications. Additionally, we found that recall and precision could be improved by (i) utilizing ranking scores provided by MTI, (ii) excluding long documents, and (iii) aggregating to higher MeSH categories. For simply detecting the presence of any disease, MTI showed > 94% recall and > 87% precision. Our overall assessment is that MTI is a potentially useful tool for researchers wishing to classify texts from a variety of sources into disease areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.