MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393200490 · doi:10.32384/jeahil20604

Brief Communication – concerning algorithmic indexing in MEDLINE

2024· article· en· W4393200490 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Amar‐Zifkin, Taline Ekmekjian, Virginie Paquet, Tara Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of EAHIL · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSearch engine indexingMEDLINEComputer scienceInformation retrievalData sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As of early 2022, indexing in the National Library of Medicine [NLM] MEDLINE database is performed by an algorithm, MTIA [Medical Text Indexer-Auto], with human curation as appropriate. Deployment of a machine learning classifier, MTIX [Medical Text Indexer-neXt generation] is planned for mid-2024. This brief communication outlines the processes of MTIA and raises concerns about the MeSH [Medical Subject Headings] applied by algorithm. Implications for searchers and educators are briefly discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.057

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EAHILSame topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207