ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2025
Algorithmic indexing in MEDLINE frequently overlooks important concepts and may compromise literature search results.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- Knowledge Syntheses in Medical Education.Family medicine · 2026Review
- Goals and strategies for the indexing of publication types and study designs.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
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.