Papers › Evaluation design conditions the expert-vs-auto MeSH gap: a controlled comparison of...
Evaluation design conditions the expert-vs-auto MeSH gap: a controlled comparison of bag-of-words and BiomedBERT on the Cohen benchmark
Samuel M. Okoe-Mensah
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
A systematic review begins with someone reading thousands of abstracts to identify the few that are relevant, and classifiers are used to prioritise that reading. Their inputs are often augmented with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), assigned either by expert indexers weeks or months after publication or by automatic tools at once. We did not identify prior work comparing the two directly as classifier features, or asking whether that comparison's outcome depends on how the classifier is evaluated. Using the Cohen et al. (2006) drug-class benchmark, we compare expert assignment against one mechanical procedure, substring matching against a MeSH vocabulary drawn from the benchmark, across a bag-of-words logistic regression classifier (seven reruns) and BiomedBERT (five seeds) on three topics. Under the canonical 5-fold full-corpus design the bag-of-words gap on Statins is +0.096 WSS@95%. Stratified subsampling to matched corpus size (n=803) reduces it by roughly two thirds, to +0.033, with a bootstrap interval that includes zero; 10-fold cross-validation at full corpus size reduces it by roughly four fifths, to +0.021. BiomedBERT under canonical evaluation gives +0.020, a difference of 0.001 from the bag-of-words 10-fold result. An empirical power analysis on a single canonical run per topic indicates that a Statins-sized effect at the per-fold variances of the other two topics would not have been detectable at that design (MDE 0.254 for Opioids, 0.384 for ADHD); at the pooled fold count of the multi-run protocol the bound depends on an effective sample size the design does not determine. The results bound the specific lexical matcher tested rather than automatic MeSH indexing in general. More broadly, benchmark conclusions about feature sources can change substantially under reasonable changes to the evaluation design.
Code
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Syntology holds the repository link but has not harvested or run code from it.
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2607.21685, was issued in July 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections