Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42453322›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2026

Automated indexing in MEDLINE and the Medical Text Indexer (MTI), 2000-2025: a scoping review.

Dean Giustini, Alexandre Amar-Zifkin, Eileen Chen, Janice Y Kung

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Dean Giustinidean.giustini@ubc.ca, Reference Librarian/Health Sciences Librarian, UBC Biomedical Branch Library, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia Library, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6197-8788
Alexandre Amar-Zifkinalexandre.amar-zifkin@umontreal.ca, Librarian, Bibliothèque de la Santé, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1196-5209
Eileen Cheneileen.chen@ucsf.edu, Clinical Research Librarian/Education and Research Librarian, UCSF Library, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0350-0513
Janice Y Kungjanice.kung@ualberta.ca, Health Sciences Librarian, Geoffrey and Robyn Sperber Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta Library, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8676-8675

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To synthesize and map literature on automated indexing of the biomedical literature, with a focus on the Medical Text Indexer (MTI) at the National Library of Medicine (NLM). We review the drivers, benefits, and challenges of automated indexing, evolution of the MTI from 2000-2025, and impacts on information retrieval in MEDLINE. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and reported findings using PRISMA-ScR and PRISMA-S. We searched several bibliographic databases, key journals, conference proceedings, and grey literature sources, with no restrictions on language or study design. Eligible publications were published 2000-2025 and focused on MTI development. Screening, data charting, and thematic analysis were conducted by multiple reviewers. Results: We included 64 publications, with most originating from the United States (n=53, 83%) and five from Canada (8%). Study methods included evaluation or comparative studies (65%), qualitative descriptions (25%), and mixed methods (11%). MTI evolved from a rules-based recommendation tool in 2002 to the neural network-based MTIX in 2024. Despite numerous enhancements to the MTI, human curation remains necessary for approximately one-third of records to correct inaccuracies, capture missed concepts, and address errors arising from figurative language or algorithmic biases. Conclusions: This review synthesizes twenty-five years of MTI research (2000-2025). Despite reduced indexing times and a markedly improved algorithm, the MTIX has not yet achieved full equivalence to human indexing. Our findings suggest searchers should watch for algorithmic ambiguities in their MEDLINE searching and adapt accordingly. Health sciences librarians should work with stakeholders, including authors, to shape future algorithmic indexing methods, outputs, evaluation and research.

Indexed as

Abstracting and IndexingInformation Storage and RetrievalMEDLINEHumansMedical Subject HeadingsNational Library of Medicine (U.S.)United StatesAlgorithmic indexingAutomated indexingMedical Subject Headings (MeSH)Medical Text Indexer (MTI)National Library of Medicine (NLM)Neural Network, Search FiltersPubMed/MEDLINE Searching

Identifiers

PMID42453322
PMCPMC13367316

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.