arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language · · 4 min read

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

Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Computer Science > Computation and Language

arXiv:2607.21685 (cs)
[Submitted on 23 Jul 2026]

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

View a PDF of the paper titled Evaluation design conditions the expert-vs-auto MeSH gap: a controlled comparison of bag-of-words and BiomedBERT on the Cohen benchmark, by Samuel M. Okoe-Mensah
View PDF HTML (experimental)
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
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

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

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Evaluation design conditions the expert-vs-auto MeSH gap: a controlled comparison of bag-of-words and BiomedBERT on the Cohen benchmark, by Samuel M. Okoe-Mensah
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source

Current browse context:

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

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

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

Demos

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

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
About arXivLabs

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.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language