Re: Sundry

2013-10-31 Thread John Green
Pei and Tim - Good questions. The bottom line is that OPQRST is the algorithm that every clinician uses to characterize the history of a sign, symptom or constellation of symptoms. Each letter has multiple meanings, but generally they're grouped. O for onset, was it quick or slow in onset, P for

Re: Sundry

2013-10-31 Thread John Green
A follow up point to the previous email: Yes Tim: middleware. This is moving beyond just documentation toward diagnosis and action, which I suppose is a hidden assumption here - maybe the cTakes community doesnt care at this point, based on history or physical exam/labs. However, a common quote

Re: cTAKES user interface

2013-10-31 Thread John Green
This is a very good point. I can attest as a new user, these hurdles mentioned by Andy seem paramount to broader adoption. Just by-the-by I loved the Linux analogy Andy. At least, to a greater or lesser degree, it survived! JG On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:33 PM, andy mcmurry

Re: Sundry; Problem Lists

2013-10-31 Thread John Green
Thanks! I will look at both. JG On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Finan, Sean sean.fi...@childrens.harvard.edu wrote: I don't know if what I write below truly applies to the discussion, but here it is. much of a problem list definition may already be contained to varying degrees in

RE: Sundry; Problem Lists

2013-10-31 Thread John Green
Sean - quick note: after looking at the above two resources, a couple of points.  The first resource confirms what I expected, that the vocabulary exists in ctakes. The second confirms what I suspected: that novel approaches to ordering and identification of top members of a problem list are

RE: Sundry; Problem Lists

2013-10-31 Thread John Green
Last point: I seem to be interested in a current encounter (the now) and diagnosis, the article seems to be interested in an arguably just as useful tool, the longitudinal problem list (the ever), though very different I would think in approach.  Thoughts?  Jg — Sent from Mailbox

3.0 -- 3.1

2013-10-31 Thread Assur, Ted
Hi: Although we're testing a proof of concept with version 3.0 right now, I ran into a couple issues in parsing with the AggregatePlanTextUMLSProcessor. In testing the same processing with 3.1, I see significant improvements in performance and accuracy, but schema changes in the output.

Re: 3.0 -- 3.1

2013-10-31 Thread Pei Chen
Ted, A good starting point I would suggest would be to take a peek at the fixed Jira items that went into 3.1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12313621version=12323276 HTH --Pei On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Assur, Ted theodore.as...@providence.orgwrote: