Hi Gandhi,

It looks like the newest version is picking up the temporal expression
complete, ³12th June 2018². The previous version only partially pick up
³June 2018². It is due to the the improvement of the timex annotator.
As for the relations(tlinks), the current distributed TLINK model is a
conventional SVM-based model which is tuned to favor close relation for
high precision, like "12th June 2018 CONTAINS paracetamol². It can pick up
some longer-distance relationship as well, but obliviously it fails for
your case for long distance relations. We are currently researching a
LSTM-based model, which can take more consideration of sentence structure
and long-distance relationship. Will update more details in the future.


On 2/12/18, 7:50 AM, "Gandhi Rajan Natarajan"
<gandhi.natara...@arisglobal.com> wrote:

>I have a question related to cTAKES Tlinks.
>Is there any particular reason why
>FullTemporalExtractionPipeline.CopyPropertiesToTemporalEventAnnotator is
>commented in TemporalSubPipe.piper?
>Also if I run the following text - "I had fever due to smoking so took
>paracetomol on 12th June 2018" in temporal demo link -
>RkC7Yk&s=dOVZEd9mrbu0NtEHUZorIzmzEFC_ghg3l8l53ed4O_M&e= , I get the
>following TLinks:
>"June 2018 CONTAINS fever , June 2018 CONTAINS smoking , June 2018
>CONTAINS paracetomol"
>But if I run the same text in the latest cTAKES using
>TemporalSubPipe.piper, I get only "12th June 2018 CONTAINS paracetomol"
>as Tlinks.
>Is it due to any recent changes in cTAKES?
>Please advise.
>This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
>addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate,
>distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender or system
>manager by email immediately if you have received this e-mail by mistake
>and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended
>recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or
>taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
>strictly prohibited and against the law.

Reply via email to