评估方式影响专家与自动标注的差距，设计不同结果差异大

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.