Descriptions:
| Term | description type | Language/acceptability | Language/acceptability | Case significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Injury of [finding site] due to birth trauma (disorder) | FSN | us:P | gb:P | ci |
| Injury of [finding site] due to birth trauma | SYN | us:P | gb:P | ci |
Concept model:
| Attribute | Value | role group number |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | ||
| 1 | ||
Definition status:
900000000000073002 |Defined (core metadata concept)|
Applies To:
(<<56110009 |Birth trauma of fetus (disorder)|)
Rules for description generation:
- Remove the semantic tag, e.g. (body structure)
- Remove 'Structure of' from [body structure] if term starts with 'Structure of' e.g. 709530002|Structure of phalanx of hand (body structure)|
- Remove 'structure' from [body structure] if term contains 'structure', e.g. 69536005|Head structure (body structure)| 24097009|Bone structure of hand (body structure)|
4 Comments
Peter G. Williams
Michael Chu, Jim Case I wonder if this template would be a good candidate for the up-coming template transformation work, and specifically if we wrote a very general "From" template that used ungrouped attributes so it would match whether or not the attributes have been grouped.
Something like : << 64572001 |Disease (disorder)| : 42752001 |Due to (attribute)| = << 236973005 |Delivery procedure (procedure)|, 116676008 |Associated morphology (attribute)| = << 19130008 |Traumatic abnormality (morphologic abnormality)|, 363698007 |Finding site (attribute)| = << 442083009 |Anatomical or acquired body structure (body structure)|
Having said that, this ECL matches 77 concepts* and they all seem to be very well modelled, so no, I wouldn't take this further. But I thought it was interesting to use ungrouped attributes in our ECL to broaden the scope of capture.
*(even without the Occurrence which I thought was needed to disambiguate trauma caused to the mother rather than the child, but perhaps due to delivery procedure covers that.)
Jim Case
Peter G. Williams, I am still playing catch up. Can you point me to the template transformation work you referred to?
Peter G. Williams
Hi Jim Case, it is just kicking off development now. We're hoping to have something to demo by early July. Best Wishes, Peter
Update: Here's the relevant ticket: TBBA-200 - Getting issue details... STATUS
Jim Case
This particular template will probably need to undergo some revision when we finalize the approach to modeling injuries. If we decide to add PATHOLOGICAL PROCESS, then another relationship will be added to the template in the RG. This is part of a much bigger project involving all injuries (many thousands of concepts)