Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(MEDLARS)
By
Pallab Das
MLIS (DL)
Roll – 001900803004
JADAVPUR UNIVERSITY
• MEDical
Literatures
Analysis
Retrieval
System
• M EDLARS, Medical Literature Analysis and
Retrieval System.
• Newest, most sophisticated, and costliest
method yet devised for controlling the vast
flood of medical literature published
throughout the world.
Time coverage
1. Medicine,
2. Nursing,
3. Pharmacy,
4. Dentistry,
5. Veterinary Medicine,
6. And Health Care.
Development of MEDLARS
• In 1957 the staff of the NLM started to plan the
mechanization of the Index Medicus.
• By 1960 a detailed specification was prepared and
by the spring of 1961 a request for proposals was
sent out to 72 companies to develop the system.
• MEDLARS cost $3 million to develop and at the
time of its completion in 1964, no other publicly
available, fully operational electronic storage and
retrieval system of its magnitude existed.
NATIONAL LIBRARY
OF MEDICINE (USA)
NLM OFFICIAL WEBSITE
MEDLARS Online
geographical headings
provisional headings
The geographical headings Provisional headings
• are used to describe articles with • Are the terms available for
epidemiological, political, indexing and machine searching
sociological, or geographic which have not yet been
interest. For instance, consider approved as main headings for
articles . Example: inclusion in Index Medicus.
• Public Health in China.
• To describe a drug under the
heading ACTINOSPECTCIN -
The term ANTIBIOTICS can also
be assigned in the Index
Medicus.
Index Medicus
• Library's most widely known MEDLARS
publication.
• Approximately 18,000 articles are cited in
each monthly issue. under about 8,000 MeSH
headings.
• Each issue contains an author index.
• Cumulated Index Medicus is published yearly.
Various subsets of Index Medicus
• Abridged Index Medicus
It is a monthly listing of references from 100 key English-
language journals in clinical medicine.
Check- Tags
• A set of routine items that must be accounted for in
the indexing of every article by the indexers.
• These items are known as check-tags.
• eg: Studies describing controlled clinical research on human beings
are identified by the check-tag clinical research ,
while,
studies of the comparative effects of two or more drugs, or two or more
procedures or techniques, are identified by the tag comparative study.
Coordinate Indexing
• In MEDLARS complex concepts are expressed by
combinations or coordination’s of two or more terms.
Example :
• by following questions:
• Do the main headings reflect the true content of the
article?
• Do the Index Medicus ( print ) headings cover the
central points of the article?
• Are the headings spelled correctly, in exactly the form
appearing in MeSH ?
• Are the correct subheadings used?
• Are the relationships expressed correct?
The Analyst's Reference Tools
CARCINOMA, EPIDERMOID*pathology
ADENOCARCINOMA*pathology
CYTO DIAGNOSIS
PROCESSING THE CITATIONS
Kidney Amyloidosis
A Simple Search Formulation
• This is a very simple search formulation for a request on renal
amyloidosis.
• By giving each term in this strategy a unique identifying number, and
by using symbols that are recognized by the MEDLARS computer,
we can reduce this strategy to a simple algebraic search equation.
• Considering the following :
• M1 KIDNEY
• M2 KIDNEY GLOMERULUS Related to Kidney
• M3 KIDNEY PELVIS
• M4 KIDNEY TUBULES
• M8 AMYLOID
• M9 AMYLOIDOSIS Kidney Related Dieseses
Contd’….
• Here it shows that M1 to M4 all the terms are
related to Kidney and
• M8 and M9 is related to Amioloidosis
Developing the Lists of Search Terms
• If L items were in the sample, the overall precision ratio was 100(H1
+ H2)/L and the ‘major value’ precision ratio were 100H1/L. It was
obviously not feasible to examine the whole MEDLARS database in
relation to each search in order to establish recall ratio. Therefore, an
indirect method was adopted for calculation of recall ratio: Each user
was asked to identify relevant items for his query before receiving
the search output and then search was carried out to find out
whether those items were indexed in the database and retrieved
along with other items that are both relevant and irrelevant. If t such
relevant items were identified by the user and available on the
database for a given query, and H were retrieved in the search, the
overall recall ratio and ‘major value’ recall ratio was estimated as
100H/t and 100H1/t1respectively.
• The next stage of the evaluation was an elaborate
analysis of retrieval failures,
i.e., examining, for each search, collected data
concerning failures include:
1. Query statement
2. Search formulation;
3. Index entries for a sample of ‘missed’ items
(i.e.relevant items that are not retrieved) and
‘waste’ items (i.e. noise—retrieval of irrelevant
items);and
4. Full text (c).
RESULTS
• The average number of references retrieved for each search was 175,
• with an average or overall precision ratio of 50.4%; that is, of the average
175 references retrieved,
• about 87 were found to be not relevant.
• The overall recall ratio was 57.7% as calculated by an indirect method.
Taking the average search, and assuming that about 88 of the references
found were relevant, with an overall recall ratio of 57.7% implies that
about 150 references should have been found, but 62 were missed.
• However, the recall and precision ratios for each of the 302 searches were
analyzed and individual ratios were then averaged in the MEDLARS test.
• The results were:
The results were
over all Major value
Recall ratio Recall ratio
• 57.7% 65.2%