ctakes-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Harpreet Khanduja <hsk5...@rit.edu>
Subject Re: Lucene for UMLS2014
Date Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:48:40 GMT
   I am using ctakes 3.1.1 in eclipse and I have added my customizations to
the project, but now I want to update it to 3.2 so that I can use
   Is there any way to update the whole ctakes project to 3.2 without my
customizations getting removed?

  It would be a great help.

Thank you,


On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Harpreet Khanduja <hsk5004@g.rit.edu>

> Thank you so much for your help.
> Harpreet.
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Finan, Sean <
> Sean.Finan@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> Hi Harpreet,
>> If you are willing to use cTakes 3.2, try the dictionary-lookup-fast
>> module as a replacement of the default dictionary-lookup.  That module has
>> a new dictionary resource (hsql, not lucene) and slightly different methods
>> for lookup and matching.  In time trials it has been faster than the
>> default module (hence the name).  Accuracy depends upon the parameter
>> settings, but in the tests performed so far the results are comparable or
>> better.  The new dictionary is much leaner than the current default
>> dictionary, small enough to port from the hsql cached version to a hsql
>> in-memory version.  Using the in-memory version makes dictionary lookup
>> practically instantaneous (hundredths of a second).  Limited documentation
>> is available in the module's doc/ directory.
>> I will be on vacation for a week, but please don't hesitate to write if
>> you have any questions.
>> Sean
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Harpreet Khanduja [hsk5004@rit.edu]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 5:07 PM
>> To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
>> Subject: Lucene for UMLS2014
>> Hello,
>>     I would be grateful if someone could help.
>>     I created a lucene index for umls2014 but only for snomed vocabulary.
>>     I did this because I thought this would reduce the dictionary look up
>> time.
>>     But it still almost the same. Is there any other way to improve the
>> dictionary look up time?
>> Thank you,
>> Harpreet

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