SNOMED CT Editorial Advisory Group

Page tree

Versions Compared

Old Version 15

changes.mady.by.user Jim Case

Saved on

compared with

New Version 16

changes.mady.by.user Paul Amos

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


Date: 2019-10-24

0900-1700

09:00-17:00 MYT (Malaysia time)

1300-1700 UTC

1800

01:00-09:00 2019-10-28 UTC

18:00 2019-10-27 to

0200

02:00 2019-10-28 PDT

Zoom Meeting Details:

Topic: SNOMED CT Editorial Advisory Group Face-to-face Meeting

Time: Oct 27, 2019 06:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)

Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android:
https://snomed.zoom.us/j/345971258

Meeting ID: 345 971 258

International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aNKqXbcBe



Attendees

Chair:

AG Members

AG Subgroup chairs






Observers:

Apologies

Meeting Files

View file
namedocument.pdf
height250

Meeting recording

The folder containing the meeting recordings is located here.

Edited transcripts are located here


Discussion items

ItemDescriptionTimeOwnerNotes and DiscussionAction

April 8, 2019

1

Call to order and role call

Notice of recording

Conflicts of Interest

0900-0905 h

Jim Case



2Agenda review and approval0905-0910 hJim Case
  •  2019-10 Agenda approved
3SNOMED CT alignment with upper level ontologies0910-1030 hJim Case

Following a panel discussion at the ICBO conference in Buffalo Aug 1-2, an agreement in principle for SNOMED to collaborate with the OBO community was reached. Much of the discussion revolved around the current SNOMED CT representation of diseases as subtypes of clinical findings.

There is a clear, mutually exclusive separation in BFO and other disease ontologies based on BFO between "diseases", which are specifically dependent continuents and clinical observations (i.e. findings), which are considered occurrents. The challenges in implementing this notion in SNOMED is explained in:

 https://www.academia.edu/26897896/Scalable_representations_of_diseases_in_biomedical_ontologies.

One differentiating feature discussed in April 2019 for what we call Clinical findings is the notion of temporality, i.e. a findings made at a point in time (an occurrence) whereas a disease is persistent. This is similar to the notions in BFO, but they (and all other disease ontologies) refer to diseases as dispositions (i.e. a realizable entity that is manifested as some abnormal process or structure. For terminologies like SNOMED that do not seek to define diseases, but to identify when a realization of the disease disposition occurs in a patient, this logical representation breaks down.

At the ICBO conference, a paper was presented in which an attempt was made to "BFOize" ICD-10. It was clear to the authors of that paper of the conundrum we face, i.e. that the use of the terms in ICD-10 as dispositions was not appropriate because they had been realized and so they modeled their ICD-10 ontology as processes (i.e. occurrents). This was criticized by a number of the ontologists, but no practical solution to the need for representation of realized dispositions in clinical recording were proposed.

A draft document is being developed by members of the MAG as a response to the issues surrounding the lack of alignment between SNOMED and BFO: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HcBj5bVIg8lB_uyORZU9A_FWKFsw0sxmB6Xg4UYKygk/edit


Additional reference describing an approach to alignment with OGMS: Attached


OBO reference: https://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/SCTO

Proposal:

In light of our desire to resolve the findings/disorders issue, to attempt to align as closely as possible with top level ontologies. One area where this would be of great use is the move by SNOMED to improve coverage of genomics. This would be greatly enhanced by an ability to integrate with the genome ontology.

Discussion:


Decision:



Break1030-1100 h


4Clinical content "Sources of truth"1100-1115 h

Bruce Goldberg

Jeff Pierson

  • Need to revisit the policy on adding text definitions from other sources
    • Do we need to reference them if we paraphrase?
  • Combined definitions from multiple sources may be required to fulfill the needs of SNOMED
  • SNOMED definitions are not normative, but used to define the meaning of a concept as represented in SNOMED CT.

Proposal:

Discussion:

Decisions:

5ECE Update1115-1200 hBruce Goldberg
  • Injuries - finalize model
  • Fractures - finalize models for traumatic and nontraumatic injuries
  • Use of multiple due to/causative agent relationships to represent a causal chain
  • Revisit model for complications
    • Achieving consistency of modeling with current definition of a complication is proving difficult

Proposal:

Discussion:

Decisions:


6Quality improvement issues1200-1215Guillermo Reynoso

Are these issues being addressed by the QI project?:

  • How to decreased the number of intermediate primitives?
  • How to increase the number of defined concepts in certain areas (findings/disorders)?
  • How to "normalize" the modeling pattern used in top level hierarchies (e.g. discuss whether to remodel asserted definitions to a canonical form using proximal primitives?
  • Discuss whether to turn some frequent units of meaning from primitive classes to defined grouper classes to facilitate grouping patterns.

Proposal:

Discussion:

Decisions:


6SNOMED CT Clinical core update1215-1230Jim Case

During the last discussion of this topic, a number of issues related to criteria for inclusion and exclusion were identified:

  • Need to specifically define what is meant by "clinically-oriented". Focus should relate directly to the "life phase" of the patient or procedures that address the "life-phase" of the patient.
  • How much of the foundation should be actively maintained as part of the clinical core?
  • Is the potential membership of the "problem list" a guiding principle for inclusion in the clinical core?
  • Should the focus primarily be on those concepts that can be sufficiently defined?

Proposal:

Discussion:

Decisions:



Lunch1230-1330 h


7Observables working group issues1330-1500 hDaniel Karlsson

Observables vs. Evaluation procedures: how to progress the shift.

Proposal:

Discussion:

Decisions:

When is a rate a rate and when is it a quantity. E.g. intake of X per day vs. excretion.

Proposal:

Discussion:

Decisions:



Break1500-1530 h


8Concept inactivation work group update1530-1540 h

Paul Amos

Jeff Pierson


This working group arose from an action at the last face to face meeting to address perceived inconsistencies in the allocation of inactivation values applied to inactivated concepts.

The group have drafted a set of potential use cases which we would like the EAG to review.

Work has begun on defining the current inactivation values and a template for the scenarios has been drafted.

Finally, Jeremy Rogers has done an initial analysis of the frequency of use of existing inactivation values.

Discussion:

Decisions:

9Use of hypernyms as descriptions1540-1630 hJeremy Rogers

Concern has been expressed about inactivation and replacement terms that from their modeling indicate that they are hypernyms to the replacement concept. The example given was the inactivation of 398042001|Accidental dural puncture (disorder)| as MAY BE 781129002|Accidental puncture of dura during anesthesia (disorder) | due to its positioning under 33211000|Complication of anesthesia (disorder)|, but without addition of the existing description "Accidental dural puncture".

Editorial guidelines from 2010 provided for hypernyms as long as they were noted in the language refset as "near synonymous (depending on context of use)"; however, the notion of near synonymy was not implemented in RF2 and thus there is currently no way to designate descriptions as broader than.

Current editorial policy states that broader descriptions should be inactivated as "not semantically equivalent" or added with the context of use specified.

Current editorial policy is supported by a position paper (SNOMED International Position on the addition of “Patient-friendly terms” (PFT) to the International release of SNOMED CT)

EAG Email thread

Proposal:

Prepare a whitepaper on SI policy related to degree of synonymy in the International release and extensions

Discussion:

1.  Do we want to reintroduce the notion of degree of synonymy to SNOMED CT?
2.  What is the scope of "allowable" degree of synonymy?
3. What types of synonymy should be supported in the "core" (by this we mean the clinical core and international edition content)?
4. What are the mechanisms, technical architectures that can be used to manage degrees of synonymy?

5. How should degree of synonymy (including non-synonymy) be handled by extensions?

Decision: