Design and implementation of a tool for conversion of search strategies between PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE contain records from the MEDLINE database. However, there are subtle differences in content, functionality, and search syntax between the two. There are many instances in which researchers may wish to search both interfaces, such as when conducting supplementary searching for a systematic review to retrieve a unique content from PubMed or when using a previously published search strategy from a different interface, but little guidance on how to best conduct these searches. The aim of this project is to describe differences in search functionality between Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed, provide guidance for converting search strategies between the two, and develop an easy-to-use, freely available web-based tool to automate search syntax translations. CASE PRESENTATION: In this paper, we present a custom-built freely available online tool, Medline Transpose, to streamline the process of converting search strategies between Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed. With this tool, users can paste a strategy formatted for one interface into the search box and immediately retrieve an output formatted for use in the other interface, with recommendations for changes that users can make to the strategy where an exact translation does not exist. CONCLUSION: This novel approach has the potential to reduce time and errors that database users spend translating search strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.016 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".