RUSSE'2018 : a shared task on word sense induction for the Russian language

The paper describes the results of the first shared task on word sense induction (WSI) for the Russian language. While similar shared tasks were conducted in the past for some Romance and Germanic languages, we explore the performance of sense induction and disambiguation methods for a Slavic language that shares many features with other Slavic languages, such as rich morphology and free word order. The participants were asked to group contexts with a given word in accordance with its senses that were not provided beforehand. For instance, given a word “bank” and a set of contexts with this word, e.g. “bank is a financial institution that accepts deposits” and “river bank is a slope beside a body of water”, a participant was asked to cluster such contexts in the unknown in advance number of clusters corresponding to, in this case, the “company” and the “area” senses of the word “bank”. For the purpose of this evaluation campaign, we developed three new evaluation datasets based on sense inventories that have different sense granularity. The contexts in these datasets were sampled from texts of Wikipedia, the academic corpus of Russian, and an explanatory dictionary of Russian. Overall 18 teams participated in the competition submitting 383 models. Multiple teams managed to substantially outperform competitive state-of-the-art baselines from the previous years based on sense embeddings

RUSSE'2018 : a shared task on word sense induction for the Russian language

The paper describes the results of the first shared task on word sense induction (WSI) for the Russian language. While similar shared tasks were conducted in the past for some Romance and Germanic languages, we explore the performance of sense induction and disambiguation methods for a Slavic language that shares many features with other Slavic languages, such as rich morphology and free word order. The participants were asked to group contexts with a given word in accordance with its senses that were not provided beforehand. For instance, given a word “bank” and a set of contexts with this word, e.g. “bank is a financial institution that accepts deposits” and “river bank is a slope beside a body of water”, a participant was asked to cluster such contexts in the unknown in advance number of clusters corresponding to, in this case, the “company” and the “area” senses of the word “bank”. For the purpose of this evaluation campaign, we developed three new evaluation datasets based on sense inventories that have different sense granularity. The contexts in these datasets were sampled from texts of Wikipedia, the academic corpus of Russian, and an explanatory dictionary of Russian. Overall 18 teams participated in the competition submitting 383 models. Multiple teams managed to substantially outperform competitive state-of-the-art baselines from the previous years based on sense embeddings

Long-term survival after composite mechanical aortic root replacement: a consecutive series of 448 cases

ObjectiveTo determine the effect of different etiologies on the outcome and mortality after mechanical composite aortic root/ascending replacement.MethodsFrom February 1998 to June 2011, 448 consecutive patients (358 men, age, 52.8 ± 12.3 years) underwent composite mechanical aortic root replacement. Of these 448 patients, 362 (80.8%) were treated for degenerative/atherosclerotic root/ascending aortic aneurysm (287 men, age, 53.0 ± 12.1 years), 65 (14.5%) for emergent acute type A aortic dissection (49 men, age, 51.0 ± 13.1 years), and 21 (4.7%) for active infective endocarditis (20 men, age, 46.5 ± 13.6 years); 15% (n = 68) were reoperative or redo procedures.ResultsThe overall hospital mortality after composite root/ascending replacement was 6.7% (n = 30). It was 3.9% (n = 14) after elective/urgent aneurysm replacement, 20.0% (n = 13) after emergency repair for acute type A aortic dissection, and 14.3% for active infective endocarditis (n = 3). The overall 1-year mortality—as a measure of operative success—was 5.2% (n = 19) after elective/urgent degenerative/atherosclerotic root/ascending aortic aneurysm repair, 21.5% (n = 14) after emergency repair for acute type A aortic dissection, and 14.3% (n = 3) after active infective endocarditis (degenerative/atherosclerotic root/ascending aortic aneurysm vs acute type A aortic dissection, P = .03; degenerative/atherosclerotic root/ascending aortic aneurysm vs active infective endocarditis, P = .08; acute type A aortic dissection vs active infective endocarditis, P = .8). Long-term survival was 88.3% at 5 years and 72.2% at 10 years, with a linearized mortality rate after 30 days of 2.5%/patient-year. Long-term survival after surgery for acute type A aortic dissection and active infective endocarditis was 72% and 72.3% at 5 years and 64.9% and 62% at 10 years, respectively, with a linearized mortality rate of 2.6%/patient-year for acute type A aortic dissection and 3.7% for active infective endocarditis. Survival after composite root replacement after the first year paralleled that of an age- and gender-matched population, regardless of the etiology. Women appeared to have less favorable longevity.ConclusionsComposite root replacement remains a versatile choice for various pathologic features with excellent longevity and freedom from reoperation and should be strongly considered if conditions for valve-sparing repair are less than perfect