Page tree

StatusReady for review
Version

0.5

Descriptions:

Termdescription typeLanguage/acceptabilityLanguage/acceptabilityCase significance
[traumatic] rupture of [body structure] (disorder)FSNus:Pgb:Pci
[traumatic] rupture of [body structure]SYNus:Pgb:Pci


Concept model:

Definition status:  


900000000000073002 |Defined (core metadata concept)|  


Applies To:

<<  64572001 |Disease (disorder)|  :  116676008 |Associated morphology (attribute)|  = <<  125671007 |Rupture (morphologic abnormality)|


Template Language

64572001 |Disease (disorder)| : [[~0..1]] {42752001 |Due to (attribute)| = [[ +id( <<773760007 |Traumatic event (event)| ) @due]] } , [[~0..1]] {263502005 |Clinical course (attribute)| = [[ +id( <<  288524001 |Courses (qualifier value)|) @course]] }, [[~1..*]] {  [[~1..1]] 116676008 |Associated morphology (attribute)| = [[ +id(<<125671007 |Rupture (morphologic abnormality)| ) @morph]],  [[~1..1]] 363698007 |Finding site (attribute)| = [[ +id( <<91723000 |Anatomical structure (body structure)| ) @site ]],  [[~0..1]] 246454002 |Occurrence (attribute)| = [[ +id( <<282032007 |Periods of life (qualifier value)|) @occurance ]]}

Rules for description generation:

  1. Apply General rules for generating descriptions for templates;

JIRA tickets:

QI-54 - Getting issue details... STATUS

INFRA-2584 - Getting issue details... STATUS

7 Comments

  1. Just checking the "applies to"  here.    Running the following ECL to work out where we're expecting this to apply:  << 64572001 |Disease (disorder)| :  {42752001 |Due to (attribute)| = <<773760007 |Traumatic event (event)|} ,  { 116676008 |Associated morphology (attribute)| = <<125671007 |Rupture (morphologic abnormality)|  ,  363698007 |Finding site (attribute)| = <<91723000 |Anatomical structure (body structure)| }

    Something like 415749005 |Traumatic rupture of tendon (disorder)|, but that's only got 9 children.  735823006 |Traumatic rupture of ligament of interphalangeal joint of finger (disorder)|  also very specific.

    Should this be run on a set defined by the morphology Jim Case, rather than a subHierarchy?   Thanks!

  2. Peter G. Williams , yes, this should be running against ASSOCIATED MORPHOLOGY = << 415747007 |Traumatic rupture (morphologic abnormality)|.  I did not edit the Applies to when I created this...Sorry

  3. Would it be make sense for the DUE TO to be optional to capture those Rupture concepts that are not marked as traumatic? Or do we consider all ruptures to be traumatic?

  4. Monica Harry,

    This was created to specifically represent traumatic ruptures, but it would be reasonable to generalize it rather than create a separate template.

  5. Peter G. Williams - would you please add Clinical course and Occurrence attributes to the template language please. thanks, Monica

    1. Ok I think I've got that.  I also touched up some of the role group cardinality and numbering.   I think we're saying that a rupture MUST be due to a traumatic event, so I've made both that attribute and the group it appears in mandatory.   Oh I see you discussed that above....well, if we're saying that the template is being made more generic, then the FSN and 'Applies To' would need to be generalized also.   I'd be interested to hear from Michael Chuif we could indicate that the inclusion of the word 'Traumatic' is dependent on the presence of the Due To → Traumatic Event attribute.

      1. Peter G. Williams Thanks, spontaneous ruptures do occur. Jim CaseSpeaking of rabbit holes: There are rupture concepts that do not say "spontaneous" in the FSN but by inference are such. Ought the model for any such be modelled with 125672000 |Nontraumatic rupture (morphologic abnormality)| and in turn ought the FSN include the word "sponteaneous". 

        Examples I am reviewing in QI can be found here:

        https://authoring.ihtsdotools.org/#/tasks/task/QIJAN21/QIJAN21-483/edit

        https://authoring.ihtsdotools.org/#/tasks/task/QIJAN21/QIJAN21-485/edit