Thank you! On Feb 15, 2016 5:18 PM, "Finan, Sean" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Jessica, > > You have it correct - LVG will add variants that the dictionary lookup > will use in an attempt to discover terms not explicitly in the dictionary > database - such as the plurals that you saw. However, it does not > guarantee "better" results. The lvg module can add variants that are > inaccurate and create false positive returns from the dictionary. For > instance, lvg thinks that the plural of the medication "dos" (docusate) is > "doses" ... so the word "doses" in text may incorrectly be tagged as the > drug. Chen Lin gets credit for discovering this specific example. > > Sean > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jessica Glover [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 3:36 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: LVG documentation > > 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 >
