Descriptions:
Term | description type | Language/acceptability | Language/acceptability | Case significance |
---|---|---|---|---|
[Course] contusion of [X body structure] (disorder) | FSN | us:P | gb:P | ci |
[Course] contusion of [X body structure] | SYN | us:P | gb:P | ci |
[Course] bruise of [X body structure] | SYN | us:A | gb:A | ci |
Concept model:
Attribute cardinality | Attribute | Value | Role group cardinality |
---|---|---|---|
1..1 | N/A | ||
0..1 | 0..1 | ||
1..1 | 1..1 | ||
1..1 | 1..1 | ||
0..1 | < 442083009 |Anatomical or acquired body structure (body structure)| [body structure] | ||
0..1 | 0..* | ||
0..1 |
Definition status:
900000000000073002 |Defined (core metadata concept)|
Applies to
<<
125667009 |Contusion (disorder)|
Template language:
[[~1..1]] {[[~1..1]] 42752001 |Due to (attribute)| = [[+id (<< 773760007 |Traumatic event (event)| ) @dueto]] },
[[~1..1 @rolegroup]] {
[[~1..1]] 116676008 |Associated morphology (attribute)| = [[+id( << 308492005 |Contusion - lesion (morphologic abnormality)| ) @ContusionMorphology ]],
[[~0..1]] 363698007 |Finding site (attribute)| = [[+id( < 442083009 |Anatomical or acquired body structure (body structure)| ) @bodyStructure]] }
[[~0..* @rolegroup]] {
[[~0..1]] 116676008 |Associated morphology (attribute)| = [[+id( << 49755003 |Morphologically abnormal structure (morphologic abnormality)| MINUS << 308492005 |Contusion - lesion (morphologic abnormality)| ) @morphology ]],
[[~0..1]] 363698007 |Finding site (attribute)| = [[+id( < 442083009 |Anatomical or acquired body structure (body structure)| )]] }
Link to the misaligned concept report:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-SX7NzyUUEltjYmDvIO56t408wbYfOIDBqGNt66ZXR8/edit#gid=0
Rules for generating descriptions:
JIRA tickets:
- INFRA-5278Getting issue details... STATUS
10 Comments
Peter G. Williams
Hi Jim CaseI said I'd check out contusion for you and I assume this was the one since you've been in here recently. I filled in the report above. 46 misaligned and it seems to be nearly all concepts which have some secondary morphology - a wound, fracture or focal damage - as well as the contusion in another role group.
Jim Case
Many thanks Peter G. Williams for the quick action. I will get right on it. Looks like the template may need to be updated to reflect the second morphology, which would not be a subtype of contusion. Would that be the right approach?
Peter G. Williams
Yes I think so, a 2nd optional role group where the morphology is << 49755003 |Morphologically abnormal structure (morphologic abnormality)| MINUS << 308492005 |Contusion - lesion (morphologic abnormality)| to ensure that the 2nd role group contains a different morphology from the 1st. Would we want the 2nd role group to always use the same finding site as the 1st role group? We'd give that 2nd slot the same name as the 1st (eg @fsite) in that case to indicate they're expected to contain the same value - they're effectively the same thing in two different places.
Jim Case
Peter G. Williams, no, the finding site could be different.
See the proposed edits to make sure I got the cardinalities correct
Yongsheng Gao
Hi Jim Case, I have updated the template language and included the clinical course in the description pattern. The term pattern for additional morphology and site would not be easy. It could be improved in future. The cardinality for the additional morphology is changed to optional to align with the role group cardinality. If you do not have any further changes, this template is ready for implementation.
Jim Case
Thanks Yongsheng Gao
Darryn McGaw
Hi Yongsheng Gao, I have noticed that both the 363698007 |Finding site (attribute)| attributes in the Template Language are body structures and the FSN/SYN themselves require a body structure slot; can you confirm which finding site attribute should contain the body structure slot name? Thanks.
Yongsheng Gao
Hi Darryn McGaw, the finding site for contusion morphology should be used. I added @bodyStructure in the template. The finding site for the optional role group should have the same value. However, we could not express this at the moment. It will be possible after we implement the enhanced features in the draft template language later this year. Cheers, Yong
Darryn McGaw
Thank you for that Yongsheng Gao.
Peter G. Williams
Oh, in fact I have coded a rule into the QI project code that says if two slots have the same name, then the values set must be the same. However I don't know that that's ever been used or tested and I'm not at all sure what the Template Service would think of that (FYI Michael Chu ) I'll put something down for next week to test that functionality.