Do human-developed index terms help users? An experimental study of MeSH terms in biomedical searching

Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting

Volumn 45, Issue , 2008, Pages

  Liu, Ying Hsang ^a   Wacholder, Nina ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biomedical searching; Controlled vocabulary; Information retrieval evaluation; MeSH (Medical Subject Headings); User characteristics

Indexed keywords

EID: 71949095175     PISSN: 15508390     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. Allen, B. L. (1991). Cognitive research in information science: Implications for design. Annual review of information science and technology, 26, 3-37.
2. Austin, D. (1974). The development of PRECIS: A theoretical and technical history. Journal of Documentation, 30(1), 47-102.
3. Bibliographic Services Task Force. (2005). Rethinking how we provide bibliographic services for the University of California. Retrieved September 17, 2006, from http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/BSTF/Final.pdf
4. Blair, D. C. (2002). The challenge of commercial document retrieval, Part I: Major issues, and a framework based on search exhaustivity, determinacy of representation and document collection size. Information Processing & Management, 38(2), 273-291.
5. Byrd, J., Charbonneau, G., Charbonneau, M., Courtney, A., Johnson, E., Leonard, K., et al. (2006). A white paper on the future of cataloging at Indiana University. Retrieved September 17, 2006, from http://www.iub.edu/~libtserv/ pub/Future-of-Cataloging-White-Paper.doc
6. Calhoun, K. (2006). The changing nature of the catalog and its integration with other discovery tools. Retrieved August 14, 2006, from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/calhoun-report-final.pdf
7. Fenichel, C. H. (1981). Online searching: Measures that discriminate among users with different types of experiences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(1), 23-32.
8. Fisher, R. A. (1935). The design of experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
9. Hersh, W., Turpin, A., Price, S., Chan, B., Kraemer, D., Sacherek, L., et al. (2000). Do batch and user evaluations give the same results? Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR, 23, 17-24.
10. Hersh, W. R., Bhuptiraju, R. T., Ross, L., Johnson, P., Cohen, A. M., et al. (2004). TREC 2004 genomics track overview. Proceedings of the Text REtrieval Conference, 13, available from http://trec.nist.gov/pubs/trec13/ papers/GEO.OVERVIEW.pdf
11. Howard, H. (1982). Measures that discriminate among online searchers with different training and experience. Online Review, 6(4), 315-327.
12. Keen, E. M. (1973). The aberystwyth index languages test. Journal of Documentation, 29(1), 1-35.
13. Lagergren, E., & Over, P. (1998). Comparing interactive information retrieval systems across sites: The TREC-6 interactive track matrix experiment. Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR Conference, 21, 164-72.
14. Mann, T. (2006). The changing nature of the catalog and its integration with other discovery tools. final report. March 17, 2006. Prepared for the Library of Congress by Karen Calhoun: A critical review [Electronic Version]. Retrieved August 14, 2006 from http://www.guild2910.org/AFSCMECalhounReviewREV. pdf
15. MeSH Browser (2003). Retrieved August 8, 2006 from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/2003/
16. New Zealand Digital Library Project. (2006). Greenstone digital library software (version 2.70) [computer software]. Hamilton, New Zealand: Department of Computer Science, The University of Waikato.
17. On the record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. (2008). Retrieved January 18, 2008 from http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pdf
18. Pao, M. L., Grefsheim, S. F., Barclay, M. L., Woolliscroft, J. O., McQuillan, M., et al. (1993). Factors affecting students use of MEDLINE. Computers and Biomedical Research, 26(6), 541-555.
19. PubMed searches. (2008). Retrieved January 25, 2008 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/tools/restable-stat-pubmeddata.html
20. Salton, G. (1972). A new comparison between conventional indexing (MEDLARS) and automatic text processing (SMART). Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences, 23(2), 75-84.
21. Salton, G. (1986). Another look at automatic text-retrieval systems. Communications of the ACM, 29(7), 648-656.
22. Savoy, J. (2005). Bibliographic database access using free-text and controlled vocabulary: An evaluation. Information Processing & Management, 41(4), 873-890.
23. Svenonius, E. (1986). Unanswered questions in the design of controlled vocabularies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37(5), 331-340.
24. Sutcliffe, A. G., Ennis, M., & Watkinson, S. J. (2000). Empirical studies of end-user information searching. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(13), 1211-1231.
25. TREC 2004 genomics track document set [data file] (2005). Available from NIST TREC 2004 Genomics Track Web site, http://trec.nist.gov/data/t13-genomics. html
26. Turpin, A. H., & Hersh, W. (2001). Why batch and user evaluations do not give the same results. Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR Conference, 24, 225-231.
27. Voorhees, E., & Harman, D. K. (2005). TREC : Experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
28. Wacholder, N., & Liu, L. (2006). User preference: A measure of query-term quality. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(12), 1566-1580.
29. Wacholder, N., & Liu, L. (2008). Assessing term effectiveness in the interactive information access process. Information Processing & Management. xxxx
30. Zobel, J. (1998). How reliable are the results of large-scale information retrieval experiments? Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR Conference, 21, 307-14.