Range of joint movement (finding) - v1.0

Yongsheng Gao , could you please create the template language for this?

Hi Jim Case , I added the template language and tested in the reporting platform. Surprisedly, it did not return any misalignments. I checked some concepts and they should have been reported as misalignments. For example, 7890003 |Contracture of joint (disorder)|. It has additional attribute Associated morphology. So, all subconcepts of |Contracture of joint| should be reported as misaligned to this template. 

Peter G. Williams Could you please check the reporting platform? It looks like the alignment has included partial matches. We need to report partial matches as misalignment. 

Cheers,

Yong

Yongsheng Gao , thanks for adding this.  I had the same issue with the Contracture of joint template, where no concepts were identified as misaligned although I knew there were unresolved issues.  Look forward to Peter G. Williams analysis 

Jim Case and Peter G. Williams , I have updated the domain as <<  298180004 |Finding of range of joint movement (finding)|  MINUS <<  7890003 |Contracture of joint (disorder)|. The new domain excludes contracture of joint disorders. This would reduce over 100 misalignments. However, it reports no misalignment. Have you resolve the issue related to "MINUS" for range exclusion? The issue might also be related to how the role group 0 for single attribute of finding site is handled in the reporting platform. 

Jim Case , I have made some changes to description pattern and changed parent concept to |Clinical finding| since you have addressed intermediate primitive concept. The domain still needs the MINUS function to avoid returning the contracture of joints as misalignments. The template language is updated accordingly. I will test the misalignment report when the UAT for reporting platform is up and running. 

Thanks Yongsheng Gao.  One area that will show up in the misaligned concepts report are the O/E concepts that are out of scope as they will eventually be inactivated.  Peter G. Williams,is it possible to exclude those from the misaligned concept report?  I know that the  MINUS won't be available until after June 17, but can we exclude specific types of concepts in the template language?

The code we run to determine if a concept aligns to a template does care about the difference between ungrouped and self grouped and this template is not picking up any concepts - I think - because finding site is self grouped.    I'll make changes to the template language and table above here.

Example:  

FYI Jim Case Yongsheng Gao

Peter G. Williams , Yongsheng Gao

Given the restrictions on the "Applies to:" domain for this template. What is the need for the additional INTERPRETS relationship?

Hi Jim Case  Peter G. Williams We should not change the role group cardinality to 0..* because all concepts are defined by the interpretation of a joint region. It is also a conflict between attribute cardinality and role group cardinality. How can we require an 'interpretation' attribute to be always present but its role group is optional? As a result of this change, the template will cover all concepts modelled by 'structure of joint region'. It means any interpretation of joint region would be conformed to this template. It does not restrict to the 'range of joint movement' anymore. Then, the domain is much broader for this template.

The template model is a specification that aligned with the requirement of the domain. For example, 'fracture of bone' template specifies bone structure and fracture morphology as 'required' rather than 'optional' in a template. This is a similar requirement for clinical finding templates. 

Hi Yongsheng Gao, 

Thanks to Peter G. Williams, we have noticed the role group cardinality for 363698007 |Finding site (attribute)| is 1..* in the Concept Model but 1..1 in the Template Language. I have changed the Template Language to be like the Concept Model, i.e. a cardinality of 1..*. I believe this is correct because, using the below ECL, we can retrieve Concepts that have multiple Finding sites. 

ECL: 

(<< 298180004 |Finding of range of joint movement (finding)| : 363714003 |Interprets (attribute)| =<< 364564000 |Range of joint movement (observable entity)| , [2..*] 363698007 |Finding site (attribute)| = (<< 785818007 |Structure of joint region (body structure)| MINUS << 39352004 |Joint structure (body structure)| ) ) MINUS ( << 7890003 |Contracture of joint (disorder)| OR << 788453008 |Hypermobility of joint (finding)| ) 

Also, for auditing reasons, the Template Language was: 

404684003 |Clinical finding (finding)| :
[[~1..1]] { 363698007 |Finding site (attribute)| = [[+id(<< 785818007 |Structure of joint region (body structure)| MINUS << 39352004 |Joint structure (body structure)| ) ]] },
[[~1..* @rolegroup]] {
[[~1..1]] 363714003 |Interprets (attribute)| = [[ +id(<< 364564000 |Range of joint movement (observable entity)| ) @range]],
[[~0..1]] 363713009 |Has interpretation (attribute)| = [[ +id ( << 260245000 |Findings values (qualifier value)| ) @interpretation]] }

However, I have changed it to be: 

404684003 |Clinical finding (finding)| :
[[~1..*]] { 363698007 |Finding site (attribute)| = [[+id(<< 785818007 |Structure of joint region (body structure)| MINUS << 39352004 |Joint structure (body structure)| ) ]] },
[[~1..* @rolegroup]] {
[[~1..1]] 363714003 |Interprets (attribute)| = [[ +id(<< 364564000 |Range of joint movement (observable entity)| ) @range]],
[[~0..1]] 363713009 |Has interpretation (attribute)| = [[ +id ( << 260245000 |Findings values (qualifier value)| ) @interpretation]] }