Automated indexing using NLM's Medical Text Indexer (MTI) compared to human indexing in Medline: a pilot study.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Eileen Chen, Julia Bullard, Dean Giustini
{"title":"Automated indexing using NLM's Medical Text Indexer (MTI) compared to human indexing in Medline: a pilot study.","authors":"Eileen Chen, Julia Bullard, Dean Giustini","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2023.1588","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In 2002, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) introduced semi-automated indexing of Medline using the Medical Text Indexer (MTI). In 2021, NLM announced that it would fully automate its indexing in Medline with an improved MTI by mid-2022. This pilot study examines indexing using a sample of records in Medline from 2000, and how an early, public version of MTI's outputs compares to records created by human indexers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This pilot study examines twenty Medline records from 2000, a year before the MTI was introduced as a MeSH term recommender. We identified twenty higher- and lower-impact biomedical journals based on Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and examined the indexing of papers by feeding their PubMed records into the Interactive MTI tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the sample, we found key differences between automated and human-indexed Medline records: MTI assigned more terms and used them more accurately for citations in the higher JIF group, and MTI tended to rank the Male check tag more highly than the Female check tag and to omit Aged check tags. Sometimes MTI chose more specific terms than human indexers but was inconsistent in applying specificity principles.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>NLM's transition to fully automated indexing of the biomedical literature could introduce or perpetuate inconsistencies and biases in Medline. Librarians and searchers should assess changes to index terms, and their impact on PubMed's mapping features for a range of topics. Future research should evaluate automated indexing as it pertains to finding clinical information effectively, and in performing systematic searches.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10361558/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2023.1588","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: In 2002, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) introduced semi-automated indexing of Medline using the Medical Text Indexer (MTI). In 2021, NLM announced that it would fully automate its indexing in Medline with an improved MTI by mid-2022. This pilot study examines indexing using a sample of records in Medline from 2000, and how an early, public version of MTI's outputs compares to records created by human indexers.

Methods: This pilot study examines twenty Medline records from 2000, a year before the MTI was introduced as a MeSH term recommender. We identified twenty higher- and lower-impact biomedical journals based on Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and examined the indexing of papers by feeding their PubMed records into the Interactive MTI tool.

Results: In the sample, we found key differences between automated and human-indexed Medline records: MTI assigned more terms and used them more accurately for citations in the higher JIF group, and MTI tended to rank the Male check tag more highly than the Female check tag and to omit Aged check tags. Sometimes MTI chose more specific terms than human indexers but was inconsistent in applying specificity principles.

Conclusion: NLM's transition to fully automated indexing of the biomedical literature could introduce or perpetuate inconsistencies and biases in Medline. Librarians and searchers should assess changes to index terms, and their impact on PubMed's mapping features for a range of topics. Future research should evaluate automated indexing as it pertains to finding clinical information effectively, and in performing systematic searches.

在 Medline 中使用 NLM 的医学文本索引器 (MTI) 自动编制索引与人工编制索引的比较:一项试点研究。
目的:2002 年,美国国家医学图书馆 (NLM) 使用医学文本索引器 (MTI) 对 Medline 进行了半自动化索引。2021 年,NLM 宣布将在 2022 年中期使用改进的 MTI 实现 Medline 索引的完全自动化。本试验性研究使用 2000 年 Medline 中的一个记录样本检验了索引编制情况,以及 MTI 输出的早期公开版本与人工索引员创建的记录的比较情况:这项试验性研究考察了 2000 年的 20 条 Medline 记录,当时 MTI 还未作为 MeSH 术语推荐器投入使用。我们根据期刊影响因子(JIF)确定了 20 种影响力较高和较低的生物医学期刊,并通过将其 PubMed 记录输入交互式 MTI 工具来检查论文的索引情况:在样本中,我们发现了自动索引与人工索引 Medline 记录之间的主要差异:MTI为JIF较高组别中的引文分配了更多术语,并更准确地使用这些术语;MTI倾向于将男性校验标签排在女性校验标签之前,并省略年龄校验标签。MTI 有时会比人类索引员选择更具体的术语,但在应用具体性原则方面并不一致:结论:NLM 向生物医学文献全自动索引的过渡可能会在 Medline 中引入或延续不一致和偏差。图书馆员和检索员应评估索引术语的变化及其对 PubMed 针对一系列主题的映射功能的影响。未来的研究应评估自动索引在有效查找临床信息和进行系统检索方面的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the Medical Library Association
Journal of the Medical Library Association INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship. The most current impact factor for the JMLA (from the 2007 edition of Journal Citation Reports) is 1.392.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信