| Value | Definition | Comments / Questions |
|---|
| Pending move | Glossary Definition UNDER RF1: The state of a component that is thought to belong in a different Namespace but which is maintained with its current SCTID while awaiting addition to the new Namespace.
UNDER RF2: The state of a component that is thought to belong in a different Module in a different Extension or Edition, while awaiting transfer to that new Module. A new Concept and associated Descriptions may be added with this Status where a missing SNOMED CT Concept is urgently required to support the needs of a particular Extension or Edition. Existing Concepts are also given this status when it is recognized that they should be moved to a different Extension or Edition or to the International Release. Terminology Services Guide UNDER RF1: The Concept is still active but it is in the process of being moved to another namespace and when the move is complete it will be marked as inactive.
UNDER RF2: The Concept is active but in the process of being moved to another Module and Extension or Edition. When the move is complete it will be remain active and with the same identifier.
Editorial Guide N/A | This used? And does this mean that the |concept inactivation indicator attribute value reference set| contains references to active components which are pending move? JR: Yes, it is used extensively but usually only by NRCs. Whenever they create a concept within their extension but believe that it is has validity and applicability on the wider international stage, this status flags is used to flag that they have proposed it for promotion to the International Edition. EXAMPLES (FROM THE UK Extension) And But yes, this does also mean that the concept inactivation indicator refset does therefore contain a lot of componentIds that are in fact currently active (at least, within any NRC release that makes use of this mechanism). So the name of the refset is indeed already seriously misleading. Gets worse if codes assigned to status=MOVED ELSEWHERE within the IE itself are also permitted to stay indefinitely active within the Donor extension or edition after the move is completed.has been completed. Under RF2 rules, the componentID becomes also listed as an active component in the Recipient extension or edition, only with a different moduleId and a later dated effectiveTime to signal and encode for the fact that editorial control of the component has, indeed, been transferred. Under RF1, if the proposal was accepted, the concept would become inactive in the donor extension and transition to 900000000000487009|Component moved elsewhere (foundation metadata concept)|, with a matching MOVED_TO pointing at the namespaceId of the recipient extension. If the proposal was rejected, it woudl would remain active within the donor extension but reverted to having no longer have any special statusspecial 'inactivation reason' value. How this same functionality should be encoded under RF2 seems somewhat confused. |
|---|
| Component moved elsewhere | Glossary Definition RF1: The state of a component that has been moved to another Namespace.
The state of a component that has been moved to another Module and in a different Extension or Edition. Concepts or Descriptions may be moved from an Extension or Edition to the International Release, from the International Release to an Extension or Edition, or between one Extension or Edition and another. Moves occur if responsibility for supporting the Concepts changes to another organization; this change of responsibilty is recorded solely by means of a change in Module. Terminology Services Guide The Concept has been made inactive because it has been moved to another namespace.
The concept may or may not become inactive in its original module: it may be best practice for it to do so, particularly in the special case where it moves down the dependency tree, but (unlike RF1) this is not strictly technically required. Under RF2, correct use of the "component moved elsewhere" status is a matter for urgent clarification, especially if in fact most components with that status should now remain active in their original source module. Editorial Guide - Applies to a component that has been moved to,
or is pending a move to another namespace - The target component identifies the target namespace, not the new component
Not any more! Another topic for urgent clarificaiton is how the MOVED_TO attribute should now be used to record where a moved component went, if the identifier remains unchanged after the move.
- BAC: this is good to hear, because when something moved to a namespace, there isn't anything in the data to tell you what namespace that actually is. You need to figure out how to find the namespace registry document.
| EXAMPLE(S): 332570000 |Dermablend cover cream 28.4g (product)|
442596000 |Left 30 degree caudal-right rostral oblique projection (qualifier value)|
20180731 10079006|Infection caused by Cysticercus cellulosae (disorder)|
20180731 113338001|Subiliac lymph node (body structure)|
20180731 127108004|Supramammary lymphadenopathy (disorder)|
20180731 127165003|Subiliac lymphadenopathy (disorder)|
20180731 13218000|Infraorbital sinus (body structure)|
20180131 134370002|Standard care program approach level (regime/therapy)|
20180131 134372005|Enhanced care program approach level (regime/therapy)|
20170731 14435007|Infection caused by Trypanosoma hippicum (disorder)|
20180731 161109002|Alcoholics anonymous (qualifier value)|
20180131 183104006|Care program approach level (regime/therapy)|
- BAC: What is an implementer to do when a concept has moved from the International release to an Extension/Edition that is for a different country where that user does not have a license?
|
|---|
| Limited component | Glossary Definition N/A Terminology Services Guide The Concept is of limited value as it contains classification categories such as 'Not Elsewhere Classified' which do not have a stable meaning within SNOMED CT . Until 2010 concepts with this status were regarded as active but since then they have been marked as inactive. Editorial Guide No longer in use and no requirement to retain | EXAMPLE(S): 218584008 |Adverse reaction to blood or blood products NOS (disorder)|
330494006 |Prednisolone eye drops (product)| 20170731 197752005|Nephropathy induced by unspecifed drug, medicament or biological substance (disorder)|
20170731 208097006|Fracture of rib(s), sternum, larynx and trachea (disorder)|
20170731 254944001|Neuronal and mixed neuronal - glial tumor of brain (disorder)|
20170731 254953008|Neuronal and mixed neuronal - glial tumor of spinal cord (disorder)|
20180131 405762000|Incomplete cervical spinal cord injury, unspecified, without spinal bone injury, C1-4 (disorder)|
20180131 405763005|Incomplete cervical spinal cord injury, unspecified, without spinal bone injury, C5-7 (disorder)|
20180131 405766002|Unspecified cervical spinal cord injury, without spinal bone injury, C1-4 (disorder)|Why is limited component still an active concept in the International Edition? JR: Because there are, and will remain, tens of thousands of inactive codes that will be forever held in that status.
And a trickle of new codes continues to be retired for that reason. |
|---|
| Erroneous component | Glossary Definition N/A Terminology Services Guide The Concept has been made inactive because it contains an error. Editorial Guide - The concept has been made inactive because it contains an error
- The target component identifies the active component that replaces this component
But exactly what 'replace' means here is crucial to define more precisely if automated data healing is to be possible
| EXAMPLES: 20170731 103642003|Reactive cellular changes associated with intrauterine contraceptive device (morphologic abnormality)|
REPLACED_BY 733529001|Reactive cellular changes caused by intrauterine contraceptive device (finding)|
20180731 105907002|Chloramphenicol (class of antibiotic, substance) (substance)| REPLACED_BY 372777009|Chloramphenicol (substance)|
20180731 115264007|Imidazole acetic acid (substance)| REPLACED_BY 35098001|Imidazole (substance)|
20180131 116273005|Dietary substance (substance)| REPLACED_BY 762766007|Edible substance (substance)|
20180131 118126003|Abnormal blood cell count (procedure)| REPLACED_BY 762656009|Abnormal blood cell count (finding)|
20180731 121005009|Varicellavirus antigen (substance)| REPLACED_BY 766838005|Antigen of Varicellovirus (substance)|
20180731 123825000|Abnormal peristalsis (finding)| REPLACED_BY 763746006|Abnormal digestive peristalsis (finding)|
20180731 125259009|Recurrent hernia (morphologic abnormality)| REPLACED_BY 414403008|Herniated structure (morphologic abnormality)|
20180131 15739841000119103|Open-angle glaucoma of bilateral eyes co-occurrent with cupping of optic disc (disorder)| REPLACED_BY 737006004|Cupping of optic discs of bilateral eyes co-occurrent and due to open-angle glaucoma (disorder)|
20180131 162373007|Has nosebleeds - epistaxis (disorder)| REPLACED_BY 249366005|Bleeding from nose (finding)|Examples are required to illustrate what en error in a concept can be. For descriptions, this value is used for technical errors. However, what does error mean here - modeling error?, and if so, how could this be distinguished from |Nonconformance to editorial policy component|... So, when the modelling does conform to editorial policies, but the semantics represented by its definition is simply incorrect. (?)
JR: Was always rather vaguely defined IMHO, and so that probably explains why there are not many assigned to this status (n=about 4200) The current collection of Erroneous Codes includes many that arguably should always have properly been Limited Status: 165483004|Red blood cell shape NOS (observable entity)| REPLACED_BY 165477002|Red blood cell shape (observable entity)|
199546002|Fetus with damage due to other maternal disease NOS (disorder)| REPLACED_BY 609429008|Foetal damage from disease in the mother (disorder)|
212157007|Complete cervical cord injury, without bony injury, C1-4 (disorder)| REPLACED_BY 405760008|Complete cervical cord injury, without spinal bone injury, C1-4 (disorder)|...or ambiguous: 106959003|Family cricetidae AND/OR other rat (organism)| REPLACED_BY 371564000|Rattus (organism)|...plus some where you have to wonder what the 'error' was: 202620006|Osteophyte (disorder)| REPLACED_BY 76069003|Disorder of bone (disorder)|
|
|---|
| Ambiguous component | Glossary Definition N/A Terminology Services Guide The Concept has been made inactive because it is inherently ambiguous either because of an incomplete fully specified name or because it has several associated terms that are not regarded as synonymous or partial synonymous. Editorial Guide - The concept has been made inactive because it is inherently ambiguous. This may be because of an incomplete fully specified name or because it has several associated terms that are not regarded as synonymous or partially synonymous
- The possibly equivalent target is an active concept that represents one of the possible meanings of the inactive concept
- Multiple rows may be used to refer to each of the possible replacement targets for the ambiguous concept
- Previously referred to as May Be A
| EXAMPLE(S) 182120006 |Foot bone: [other] or [metatarsals &/or phalanges] (body structure)|
401273001 |Anthrax serology (procedure)|
366633006 |Finding of foot joint stability (finding)|
|
|---|
| Outdated component | Glossary Definition Terminology Services Guide The Concept has been made inactive because it is an outdated concept that is no longer used. Editorial Guide The concept has been made inactive because it is an outdated concept that is no longer used | EXAMPLE(S): 384900005 |Haloperidol 100mg injection solution ampule (product)| JR: Historically very unloved as a status (n=2085) Mostly given over to codes for microorganism species or genus that are no longer belived to exist, plus a handful of codes for sexual orientations that were in Olden Times classified and semantically tagged as a disorder. Also used in UK for pharmaceutical AMPs that were never actually available on the market. |
|---|
| Duplicate component | Glossary Definition N/A Terminology Services Guide The Concept has been made inactive because it has the same meaning as another Concept . Editorial Guide - The concept has been made inactive because it has the same meaning as another concept
- The target component identifies the active component that this component duplicates
| EXAMPLE(S) (with active duplicate): JR: Simplest and easiest to understand! And very popular... |
|---|
| Nonconformance to editorial policy component | Glossary Definition N/A Terminology Services Guide N/A Editorial Guide Applies to a concept which does not adhere to the Editorial guidelines | EXAMPLES(S): 32059002 |Actinium-225 (substance)|
320134007 |Salbutamol 200micrograms/blister disks refill (product)| 20180731 10243007|Benzoic and salicylic acid ointment (product)|
20180731 103025005|Antigonadotropin (substance)|
20180731 10355004|Injectable vitamin preparation (product)|
20180731 10356003|Undecylenic acid and undecylenate salt (product)|
20180731 10368007|Colloidal oatmeal powder (product)|
20180731 105814004|Hydrogen, oxygen AND/OR water (substance)|
20180731 105815003|Carbon AND/OR carbon compound (substance)|
20180731 105816002|Phosphorus AND/OR phosphorus compound (substance)|
20180731 105817006|Nitrogen AND/OR nitrogen compound (substance)|
20180731 105818001|Sulfur AND/OR sulfur compound (substance)|JR: GOK what this covers! BAC: in trying to find examples, every random sample I tried was a product/substance thing. It would be interesting to take all those out and see what's left over. JR: Distribution by semantic type (as of July 2018 International Edition) was: (product) 3663
(substance) 381
(disorder) 201
(medicinal product) 197
(situation) 100
(procedure) 81
(finding) 57
(qualifier value) 56
(medicinal product form) 46
(organism) 30
(observable entity) 10
(event) 8
(administrative concept) 5
(navigational concept) 5
(body structure) 4
(clinical drug) 3
(morphologic abnormality) 3
(physical object) 2
(cell) 1
(regime/therapy) 1
OTHER 3Some examples from the semantic types with lower counts include: |
|---|
| Reason not stated | Glossary Definition None of the above Terminology Services Guide The Concept has been made inactive but the reason for this inactivation is either unknown, not one of the codeable reasons (above) or was for some other reason not recorded. | EXAMPLES (there were 6,969 examples in the July 2018 International Edition) 105636004 20180131 Disease of possible viral origin (disorder)
112637005 20170731 Complete bilateral congenital failure of fusion (morphologic abnormality)
1283006 20170131 Visual acuity less than .02 (1/60, count fingers 1 meter) or visual field less than 5 degrees, but better than 5. (finding)
16352008 20170131 Visual acuity less than .3 (6/18,20/70), but better than 2. (finding)
196409003 20180131 Midline diastema of teeth (disorder)
196410008 20180131 Spacing of posterior teeth (disorder)
235103002 20180131 Spacing of anterior teeth (disorder)
235775001 20180131 Small muscle hypertrophy of sigmoid colon (disorder)
25672001 20170731 Bilateral hyperplasia (morphologic abnormality)
267608003 20180131 Retinal detachments and defects (disorder) |
|---|