A tool for toponym recognition in medieval documents

Este artigo apresenta o método de construção duma ferramenta para a anotação de entidades geográficas mencionadas em textos medievais. A nova ferramenta foi desenvolvida a partir dos módulos de língua contemporânea do LinguaKit, pacote multilingue de ferramentas de PLN. Uma coleção de corpora anotados manualmente serviu de recurso para elaborar uma lista de topónimos medievais (gazetteers) e observar padrões para a melhora e implementação de novas regras de reconhecimento dos nomes de lugar. Depois da lista de entidades geográficas, os ativadores contextuais (triggers) foram o recurso determinante na melhora da abrangência. Para o produto final, fizeram-se também ajustes menores na procura de recolher os elementos mais comuns do léxico e os contextos gramaticais das entidades geográficas mencionadas. Ainda que muito trabalho fica por fazer na elaboração de listas para entidades não geográficas, na construção dum modelo de língua medieval e um lexicon específico, o novo módulo pode ser utilizado para anotar textos e mostra uma melhora significativa a respeito dos módulos previamente existentesThis paper describes a method to build a tool aimed at recognizing geographical named entities in medieval texts. The new tool has been developed using the corresponding modules for contemporary languages contained in LinguaKit, a suite of NLP tools. A collection of manually annotated corpora served as a resource to build a gazetteer of medieval toponyms and find patterns to improve and implement new rules for the recognition of place names. In addition to the gazetteer, a list of triggers was the most determinant factor to improve recall. Final adjustments considered the most frequent terms of the lexicon and grammatical contexts for geographical named entities. In the process of building a model of medieval language and a specific lexicon, the available tool can already be used to annotate texts and shows a significant improvement when compared with previous modules. However, most work remains to be done in terms of adding specific gazetteers for entities other than geographicalEste trabalho foi desenvolvido no marco da rede galega de investigacao TECANDALI, ED341DR2016/011, financiada pela Consellaría de Educación e Ordenación Universitaria da Xunta de Galicia, e do European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)S

Risk profiles and one-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in India: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) is an ongoing prospective noninterventional registry, which is providing important information on the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This report describes data from Indian patients recruited in this registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 52,014 patients with newly diagnosed AF were enrolled globally; of these, 1388 patients were recruited from 26 sites within India (2012-2016). In India, the mean age was 65.8 years at diagnosis of NVAF. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor for AF, present in 68.5% of patients from India and in 76.3% of patients globally (P < 0.001). Diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) were prevalent in 36.2% and 28.1% of patients as compared with global prevalence of 22.2% and 21.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Antiplatelet therapy was the most common antithrombotic treatment in India. With increasing stroke risk, however, patients were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant therapy [mainly vitamin K antagonist (VKA)], but average international normalized ratio (INR) was lower among Indian patients [median INR value 1.6 (interquartile range {IQR}: 1.3-2.3) versus 2.3 (IQR 1.8-2.8) (P < 0.001)]. Compared with other countries, patients from India had markedly higher rates of all-cause mortality [7.68 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 6.32-9.35) vs 4.34 (4.16-4.53), P < 0.0001], while rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were lower after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to previously published registries from India, the GARFIELD-AF registry describes clinical profiles and outcomes in Indian patients with AF of a different etiology. The registry data show that compared to the rest of the world, Indian AF patients are younger in age and have more diabetes and CAD. Patients with a higher stroke risk are more likely to receive anticoagulation therapy with VKA but are underdosed compared with the global average in the GARFIELD-AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Comparison of international normalized ratio audit parameters in patients enrolled in GARFIELD-AF and treated with vitamin K antagonists

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) requires monitoring of the international normalized ratio (INR). We evaluated the agreement between two INR audit parameters, frequency in range (FIR) and proportion of time in the therapeutic range (TTR), using data from a global population of patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular AF, the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD\u2013Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF). Among 17\ua0168 patients with 1-year follow-up data available at the time of the analysis, 8445 received VKA therapy (\ub1antiplatelet therapy) at enrolment, and of these patients, 5066 with 653 INR readings and for whom both FIR and TTR could be calculated were included in the analysis. In total, 70\ua0905 INRs were analysed. At the patient level, TTR showed higher values than FIR (mean, 56\ub70% vs 49\ub78%; median, 59\ub77% vs 50\ub70%). Although patient-level FIR and TTR values were highly correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient [95% confidence interval; CI], 0\ub7860 [0\ub7852\u20130\ub7867]), estimates from individuals showed widespread disagreement and variability (Lin's concordance coefficient [95% CI], 0\ub7829 [0\ub7821\u20130\ub7837]). The difference between FIR and TTR explained 17\ub74% of the total variability of measurements. These results suggest that FIR and TTR are not equivalent and cannot be used interchangeably