Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ctakes.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:36:23 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAG2LLHCusuvJCDspyRA=nYd-ap9okdHFwR3_+VeZw1ah=S8jhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: LVG documentation
From: Jessica Glover <glover.jessica.m@gmail.com>
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135e07e57592c052bd4f8fc

--001a1135e07e57592c052bd4f8fc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hello,

I would like to add a brief explanation and an example in the LVG
documentation as to why it says in the Component Use Guide that LVG is
effectively required for good results in dictionary lookup, but before I
do, I'd like to understand it a bit better myself.

I have an example sentence that yielded different results when I ran it
through CuisOnlyUMLSProcessor with and without LVGAnnotator enabled.

"Nasal canals are free of masses or apparent polyps."

No LVG: Identified Annotations: "Nasal", "polyps"
With LVG: Identified Annotations: "Nasal", "canals", "masses", "polyps"

My guess would be that the canonical (in this case, singular) form of these
words is in the UMLS dictionary but the word tokens themselves are not. Can
I generalize to say that using LVG gives a better chance of getting a
dictionary hit for a missed word token by also looking up relevant variants
of that token?

Thanks,
Jessica

--001a1135e07e57592c052bd4f8fc--