Hi Pei,
 
Thanks so much for the prompt response.  
 
Question 1:   I forgot that one can use the Assertion or NE Contexts component, 
which are used separately.    The Assertion component is what's including in 
the default Aggregate AE and considered the preferred one.    I guess I could 
switch to NE contexts to get historyOf then switch back to Assertion for 
everything else but that seems like a waste of time.   However, I hope I'm just 
missing some switch or something and REALLY hope that some else can chime in to 
explain how to get Assertion to provide the historyOf feature.    
 
Question 2:   Thanks or this reference to the HL7/CCDA sectionizer.   I know I 
should be getting more experience w/UIMAfit but I jut like working with the XML 
descriptor since once created it's easily added to the aggregate AE as part of 
the clinical pipeline.  Would you be able to provide the XML descriptor or 
provide how to create it for the CCDA sectionizer?
 
Thanks.
 
Regards,
Paula
 
> From: pei.c...@childrens.harvard.edu
> To: user@ctakes.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Question pertaining to HistoryOf and SegmentID features
> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:48:39 +0000
> 
> >1.)  In the CVD tool, depression is showing a subject of family_member which 
> >is correct.  However hypertension is showing a historyOf: 0.     I'm using 
> >the clinical pipeline that is setup in the AggregateAE by default.    Is 
> >there something that I need to add to the Assertion component to be able to 
> >see patient history be denoted correctly?  I would expect to see with the 
> >text "history of depression, for the patient" to show as 'historyOf:1'   
> I was still using the old StatusAnnotator for history/family history of.  I 
> don't recall where the new assertion AE is setting the history... perhaps 
> someone else could chime in here.
> 
> >2.) In my sample text above I have two segments:  (History: and Current 
> >Diagnosis:)  However the SegmentID features always shows:  SIMPLE_SEGMENT.  
> >I would think that it should have 'segmentID: History'  for the first sample 
> >text section and 'segmentID: Current Diagnosis' for the second text sample.  
> >Is there a way to make this happen?
> 
> Check out the HL7/CCDA sectionizer in the sandbox area:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ctakes/sandbox/ctakes-sectionizer/
> It's a simple regex based annotator that will identify the different sections 
> and normalize them to HL7 template id's.  It hasn't gone into mainstream 
> ctakes yet.
> Which uses a simple mapping file: 
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ctakes/sandbox/ctakes-sectionizer/src/main/resources/org/apache/ctakes/core/sections/ccda_sections.txt
> 
> Thanks,
> Pei
> 
> From: digital paula [mailto:cybersat...@hotmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 11:26 AM
> To: user@ctakes.apache.org
> Subject: Question pertaining to HistoryOf and SegmentID features
> 
> Hello again cTakes Community,
>  
> Okay I have two questions this time and both pertain to the HistoryOf and 
> SegmentID features.
>  
> Using this sample text:  
> History:  Patient has a history of hypertension and family history of 
> depression.  
> Current Diagnosis:  Patient has CAD.  
>  
> 1.)  In the CVD tool, depression is showing a subject of family_member which 
> is correct.  However hypertension is showing a historyOf: 0.     I'm using 
> the clinical pipeline that is setup in the AggregateAE by default.    Is 
> there something that I need to add to the Assertion component to be able to 
> see patient history be denoted correctly?  I would expect to see with the 
> text "history of depression, for the patient" to show as 'historyOf:1'   
>  
> 2.) In my sample text above I have two segments:  (History: and Current 
> Diagnosis:)  However the SegmentID features always shows:  SIMPLE_SEGMENT.  I 
> would think that it should have 'segmentID: History'  for the first sample 
> text section and 'segmentID: Current Diagnosis' for the second text sample.  
> Is there a way to make this happen?
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Regards,
> Paula

                                          

Reply via email to