ctakes-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Wu, Stephen T., Ph.D." <Wu.Step...@mayo.edu>
Subject Re: [jira] [Created] (CTAKES-226) CEM Templates- In the xxxMentions locations/severity store Annotation instead of the BinaryTextRelation
Date Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:12:38 GMT
We had similar discussion about including the cue words for negation or
uncertainty, etc.  How would you use these cue words/dictionary words
after you've already done your NER or attribute discovery?

I think this is a little too similar to either using cue-word-based rules
for everything or basically including whole feature vectors for each
decision made.


On 8/21/13 1:26 PM, "Masanz, James J." <Masanz.James@mayo.edu> wrote:

>other nice-to-have along these lines would be
>(1) the words within the text that caused the annotation to be created.
>(2) the words of the dictionary entry that caused the annotation to be
>(1) is especially useful when there are intervening words within the
>For the phrase "cancer of colon, lung and liver" annotated with  93870000
>due to the words "cancer" and "liver"
>(2) is especially useful when the preferred term does not share any words
>in common with a dictionary entry (due to synonyms)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: notifications-return-804-Masanz.James=mayo.edu@ctakes.apache.org
>On Behalf Of Pei Chen (JIRA)
>Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 1:08 PM
>To: notifications@ctakes.apache.org
>Subject: [jira] [Created] (CTAKES-226) CEM Templates- In the xxxMentions
>locations/severity store Annotation instead of the BinaryTextRelation
>Pei Chen created CTAKES-226:
>             Summary: CEM Templates- In the xxxMentions
>locations/severity store Annotation instead of the BinaryTextRelation
>                 Key: CTAKES-226
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CTAKES-226
>             Project: cTAKES
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 3.1
>            Reporter: Pei Chen
>             Fix For: future enhancement
>> Hi James/Steven,
>> In the common type system/template fillers, do you recall why we
>> stored the TextRelation instead of the resolved annotation?
>> For example, in SignSymptomMention, getBodyLocation() returns
>> LocationOfTextRelation.
>> So in order to actually get the AnatomicalSiteMention, you would have
>> to look inside LocationOfTextRelation arg1 or arg2.
>> I think it be more intuitive and simpler for consumers of the CEM's to
>> just store the AnatomicalSiteMention?  Is there a use case I am
>> missing where someone would want something different than the
>> SignSymptomMention.getBodyLocation() other than the actual
>> AnatomicalSiteMention?
>Email Thread: 
>This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
>If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA
>For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

View raw message