ctakes-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From andy mcmurry <mcmurry.a...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: new dictionary lookup {was RE: lvg entries]
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2014 07:22:45 GMT
Highly Relevant

*DNorm: disease name normalization*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3810844/

"Disease names are often created by combining roots and affixes from Greek
or Latin (e.g. ‘hemochromatosis’)" ....






On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Masanz, James J. <Masanz.James@mayo.edu>wrote:

> Sean,
>
> Will the new dictionary lookup use the canonicalForm? If not, perhaps you
> can remove LVG from at least some of the pipelines (drug-ner does not
> include the dependency parser)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Finan, Sean [mailto:Sean.Finan@childrens.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 12:52 PM
> To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
> Subject: RE: lvg entries
>
> Those variants are not used by the dictionary lookup.  I did look at them
> to see if it was worthwhile for the new dictionary, but they are all over
> the place so I passed.
> ________________________________________
> From: Miller, Timothy [Timothy.Miller@childrens.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 1:25 PM
> To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
> Subject: Re: lvg entries
>
> Pei and I had a similar discussion in person -- mapping from lexical
> variants to a stem might be useful. Pei also mentioned that one intended
> use might have been searching the dictionary with lexical variants, but
> I don't think that is done. Looking at the precision of the variants, I
> think its highly unlikely the speed tradeoff would be worth any
> improvements in recall.
>
> Finally, at least in eclipse doing a search on references to the method
> to retrieve the lemma entries turns up nothing.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 04/17/2014 01:14 PM, Dligach, Dmitriy wrote:
> > I don't know of any applications within cTAKES that make use of this...
> The reverse (mapping from these "variants" to the normal form) may be
> useful though.
> >
> > Dima
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:50, Miller, Timothy <
> Timothy.Miller@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Sure, just as an example, I gave it a note with about 1000 words. It
> >> generates 11500 NonEmptyFSList elements (each is basically one lexical
> >> variant).
> >>
> >> For the word "symptomatic", these are the first 10 of 20 lexical
> variants:
> >> Symptomaticer/JJ
> >> Symptomaticer/RB
> >> Symptomaticed/VB
> >> Symptomaticcing/VB
> >> Symptomatics/VB
> >> Symptomatics/NN
> >> Symptomaticked/VB
> >> Symptomatic/VB
> >> Symptomatic/JJ
> >> Symptomatic/RB
> >>
> >> Tim
> >>
> >>
> >> On 04/17/2014 12:31 PM, Dligach, Dmitriy wrote:
> >>> Tim, this is a very interesting observation. Could you please send a
> few examples of what LVG generates? Both sensical and non :)
> >>>
> >>> Dima
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:28, Miller, Timothy <
> Timothy.Miller@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The LVG annotator creates an enormous number of "lemmas" for every
> >>>> WordToken in the CAS, and I'm wondering what the original purpose
> was? I
> >>>> think this is probably a minor bottleneck for speed but mostly a
> pretty
> >>>> big space hog (at least 50% of the space of xmi files in my tests).
> >>>>
> >>>> As of right now I'm not sure if any downstream components are using
> >>>> these lemmas, and on a manual inspection the precision seems to be
> >>>> pretty abysmal (meaning most of them are nonsensical as lexical
> >>>> variants), so as I said, just wondering if we can revisit why cTAKES
> >>>> generates so many and whether that component can be optimized.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>> Tim
> >>>>
> >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message