Computer Science > Computation and Language

Computer Science > Computation and Language

arXiv:2607.21685 (cs)

Title:Evaluation design conditions the expert-vs-auto MeSH gap: a controlled comparison of bag-of-words and BiomedBERT on the Cohen benchmark

Abstract: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. To our knowledge the two have not been compared directly as classifier features, and no previous work has asked whether that comparison's outcome depends on how the classifier is evaluated. Using the Cohen et al. (2006) drug-class benchmark on three topics, we characterise a bag-of-words logistic regression classifier (seven reruns) and BiomedBERT (five seeds), then examine how the Statins result changes under alternative designs. Under the canonical 5-fold full-corpus design, the bag-of-words expert-vs-auto gap on Statins is +0.096 WSS@95%. Matching the corpus size to the smaller topics (n = 803) reduces it to +0.033 (95% bootstrap CI includes zero), and 10-fold cross-validation at full size to +0.021 (CI narrowly excludes zero). Under canonical evaluation BiomedBERT gives +0.020, within sampling noise of the bag-of-words 10-fold result. A power analysis indicates a Statins-sized effect would not have been detectable at the Opioids or ADHD variance, so those nulls are design-limited rather than informative. A representation asymmetry remains: 15.1% of Statins inputs exceed BiomedBERT's 512-token limit when expert MeSH terms are appended, so truncation may contribute to the smaller transformer gap, although this cannot be separated from training volume here. In screening pipelines using transformers or 10-fold bag-of-words, the gap on the topics tested is about 0.02 WSS@95%, with CIs spanning zero on at least one bound. More broadly, benchmark conclusions about feature sources can change substantially under reasonable changes to the evaluation design.
Comments: 15 pages, 2 figures, 10 tables
Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2607.21685 [cs.CL]
  (or arXiv:2607.21685v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.21685

Submission history

From: Samuel Okoe-Mensah [view email]
[v1] Thu, 23 Jul 2026 14:37:23 UTC (74 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

  • HTML (experimental)

Current browse context:

cs.CL
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:
cs

References & Citations

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

via ArXiv CL

Related