Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42601622›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2026

Benchmarking MeSH-augmented embeddings for biomedical document similarity.

Rohitha Ravinder, Lukas Geist, Nelson Quiñones, Suhasini Venkatesh, Leyla Jael Castro, Dietrich Rebholz-Schuhmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 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

6 authors.

Rohitha RavinderZB MED Information Centre for Life Sciences, Gleueler Str. 60, 50931, Cologne, Germany. ravinder@zbmed.de.
Lukas GeistZB MED Information Centre for Life Sciences, Gleueler Str. 60, 50931, Cologne, Germany.
Nelson QuiñonesZB MED Information Centre for Life Sciences, Gleueler Str. 60, 50931, Cologne, Germany.
Suhasini VenkateshZB MED Information Centre for Life Sciences, Gleueler Str. 60, 50931, Cologne, Germany.
Leyla Jael CastroZB MED Information Centre for Life Sciences, Gleueler Str. 60, 50931, Cologne, Germany.
Dietrich Rebholz-SchuhmannZB MED Information Centre for Life Sciences, Gleueler Str. 60, 50931, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe extensive volume of biomedical scientific literature requires efficient methods for retrieving relevant documents based on semantic technologies and biomedical concepts. While embedding-based methods have shown improvements over traditional keyword-based methods, the integration of domain-specific terminologies like Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) into these models remain underexplored.

methodsThis study compares three hybrid methods that integrate MeSH-based annotations with document embeddings (called "pre-annotation", "post-annotation" and"post-reduction"). We benchmark these hybrid methods against the following traditional methods: TF-IDF, standard neural embeddings (Word2Vec, fastText, Doc2Vec) and publicly available transformer-based models (BioBERT, SciBERT, SPECTER, SapBERT), using cosine similarity and Word Mover's Distance (WMD) as evaluation metrics. The benchmark experiments are based on the RELISH corpus, a manually curated dataset of PubMed articles where experts have labeled pairs of documents with regards to their relevance to each other, providing a 2-class (relevant vs. non-relevant) as well as a 3-class (relevant, partially relevant, non-relevant) judgment.

resultsTransformer-based models, particularly fine-tuned BioBERT and SciBERT align best with the expert judgements after fine-tuning. Among non-transformer methods, Doc2Vec and MeSH-based hybrid methods also perform well, demonstrating the benefits from combining structured biomedical vocabularies with embedding methods. Our experiments deliver extensive results showing that the baseline performance of 76-78% precision at position 5 can be achieved through almost all approaches, improvements of 2-4% with MeSH concepts can be achieved, but performances up to 90% is left to the fine-tuned large-scale public models.

conclusionThe performance gains from the integration of concepts may be underwhelming, however the benefits lie in the successful integration and benchmarking of structured vocabularies with embedding methods, the applicability of these techniques to aligning literature with other data sources via a controlled vocabulary and the potential for stronger performance on tasks and corpora where concept-based resources are better suited. All experiments have been conserved as a Dockerized pipeline, making the full benchmarking workflow reproducible and supporting future research in biomedical document retrieval.

Indexed as

Medical Subject HeadingsBenchmarkingSemanticsBiomedical document retrievalBiomedical document similarityDocument embeddingsRecommendation systemsSemantic similarity

Identifiers

PMID42601622
PMCPMC13476922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.