Page tree

StatusReady for implementation
Version2.0

Descriptions:

Termdescription typeLanguage/acceptabilityLanguage/acceptabilityCase significance
[course] [morphology] of [body structure] caused by [agent] (disorder)FSNus:Pgb:Pci
[course] [morphology] of [body structure] caused by [agent]SYNus:Pgb:Pci


Concept model:

Attribute cardinalityAttributeValueRole group cardinality
1..1N/A
0..1N/A
0..1N/A
0..1N/A
0..11..*
@rolegroup
1..1
0..1
0..1
0..1

0..1


0..*
@rolegroup
0..1
0..1
0..1
0..1
0..1


0..1 @rolegroup



0..1

Definition status:  


900000000000073002 |Defined|

Applies to:

<< 64572001 |Disease (disorder)| : 116676008 |Associated morphology (attribute)| = << 6081001 |Deformity (morphologic abnormality)|


Template Language: Draft

64572001 |Disease (disorder)| : [[~0..1]] {[[~0..1]] 263502005 |Clinical course (attribute)| = [[ +id (< 288524001 |Courses (qualifier value)| ) @course]]}, [[~0..1]] { [[~0..1]] 42752001 |Due to (attribute)| = [[+id ( < 404684003 |Clinical finding (finding)| OR << 71388002 |Procedure (procedure)| OR << 272379006 |Event (event)| ) @dueto ]] }, [[~0..1]] { [[~0..1]] 255234002 |After (attribute)| = [[+id (< 404684003 |Clinical finding (finding)| OR << 71388002 |Procedure (procedure)| OR << 272379006 |Event (event)| ) @after ]] }, [[~1..* @rolegroup]]{ [[~1..1]] 116676008 |Associated morphology (attribute)| = [[+id(<< 6081001 |Deformity (morphologic abnormality)| ) @morphology ]], [[~0..1]] 363698007 |Finding site (attribute)| = [[+id(< 442083009 |Anatomical or acquired body structure (body structure)| )]],[[~0..1]] 246454002 |Occurrence (attribute)| = [[ +id (< 282032007 |Periods of life (qualifier value)| ) @life]], [[~0..1]] 370135005 |Pathological process (attribute)| = [[ +id ( << 308490002 |Pathological developmental process (qualifier value)| ) @proc]], [[~0..1]] 246075003 |Causative agent (attribute)| = [[ +id (< 410607006 |Organism (organism)| OR < 105590001 |Substance (substance)| OR < 78621006 |Physical force (physical force)| ) @agent]] }, [[~0..* @rolegroup]]{ [[~1..1]] 116676008 |Associated morphology (attribute)| = [[+id(<< 49755003 |Morphologically abnormal structure (morphologic abnormality)| ) @morphology1 ]], [[~0..1]] 363698007 |Finding site (attribute)| = [[+id(< 442083009 |Anatomical or acquired body structure (body structure)| )]], [[~0..1]] 246454002 |Occurrence (attribute)| = [[ +id (< 282032007 |Periods of life (qualifier value)| ) @life]], [[~0..1]] 370135005 |Pathological process (attribute)| = [[ +id ( << 308490002 |Pathological developmental process (qualifier value)| ) @proc]],[[~0..1]] 246075003 |Causative agent (attribute)| = [[ +id (< 410607006 |Organism (organism)| OR < 105590001 |Substance (substance)| OR < 78621006 |Physical force (physical force)| ) @agent]]}, [[~0..* @rolegroup]] { [[~0..1]] 363714003 |Interprets (attribute)| = [[ +id ( < 363787002 |Observable entity (observable entity)| OR < 108252007 |Laboratory procedure (procedure)| OR < 386053000 |Evaluation procedure (procedure)| ) @range]], [[~0..1]] 363713009 |Has interpretation (attribute)| = [[ +id ( << 260245000 |Findings values (qualifier value)| ) @interpretation]] }

Link to the misaligned concept report

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fFhRVv6ICHsT4nwtdyQLjMqh93d6vLxfN1QN5vxUz7k/edit#gid=0

Rules for description generation

  1. Apply General rules for generating descriptions for templates;
  2. Apply Enhancements for the Template Language;

JIRA ticket:

QI-276 - Getting issue details... STATUS

INFRA-3462 - Getting issue details... STATUS

14 Comments

  1. Nicola Ingram,

    Your RG cardinality for DUE TO and AFTER  and CLINCCAL COURSE looks to me like you have made them mandatory, Were these supposed to be 0..1?


  2.  Jim Case ah yes -  so STL needs to be e.g.  [[~0..1]] {[[~0..1]]  42752001 |Due to (attribute)|... same for After and I see in this scenario other recent templates have RG  cardinality  = N/A.

    Will alter and re-run the report   - thanks and hoping for even more alignment.


    Tweaked the deformity RG number to [[~1..* @rolegroup]].

    Now only 166 misaligned (and they have the Interprets, Has interpretation RG)

    1007 aligned - previously was only 5 using old template.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16v2zPMvbm6YW0uAiJbBY7jL8phiQDDjwR7MgzCsoi2Q/edit#gid=3

    Nicki

  3. Jim Case

    Can you review my updated Template for me, I added an optional  Interprets, Has interpretation RG

    1256 Aligned

    54 Misaligned

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fFhRVv6ICHsT4nwtdyQLjMqh93d6vLxfN1QN5vxUz7k/edit#gid=3

    Thanks,

    Nicki

  4. Nicola Ingram,

    The template looks good to me.  Great increase in template compliance. 

  5. Jim Case Yongsheng Gao Peter G. Williams

    Updated Deformity of [body structure] (disorder) new template placed in review (is 1.7 the right version number thinking it will fully achieve V2 status after your review?).

    Wondering if I should add 47429007 |Associated with (attribute)| too? It is quite a complex Template already so not sure if that will be a problem for the STL reporting and implementation?

    Thanks,

    Nicki

    1. Hi Nicola Ingram, there are about 10 concepts that modelled by 'associated with' a disorder. The association with between disorders should not be modeled by this attribute anymore. |Associated with| attribute should not be added for this template.

      Bilateral conditions will be handled after we implement the new enhancements in the template language. We will need to discuss how to handle multiple conditions. The additional role group does help to reduce the number of non-alignment. However, it will miss any incorrectly inferred second role group which is not suppose to be there.


      1. Agree with Yong to the extent that we do not have any deformities associated with prostheses, which allows for the use of ASSOCIATED WITH.

        Yongsheng Gao , What would be a circumstance where we would get an additional inferred RG as the PPP is Disease?  I would see those occurring if we have intermediate primitives allowed as the parent. 


        1. Hi Jim Case, the template would be used for checking concepts that have not been modelled by the PPP of disease. As you said, this is why the additional inferred role groups. For example, a concept has incorrect inferred second role group which should not be there. If we use two role group in the template, the alignment report will not identify the problem.  I assumed that the report is against the inferred model for attribute/value. Otherwise, we have missed this type of issues even with the restricted single role group in the template. Peter G. Williams Could you please confirm this?

          1. Yes we check alignment of the inferred attributes to the template.   

            Currently, template compliance does not enforce that the desired PPP is achievable.

  6. Hi Yongsheng Gaoand Jim Case

    The first concept on the misaligned list on the results spreadsheet is 203659007 |Lordosis in hip disease (disorder)|  - which made me raise the question.

    For the 2nd role group  - it is very broad and allows for everything as Yong says "However, it will miss any incorrectly inferred second role group which is not suppose to be there." I will run a report without that 2nd RG and see what turns up.


    Nicki

  7. Without the 2nd RG:

    1057 aligned,

    252 misaligned and did not 'Skip known complete' as report failed when I did this. Majority are Orphanet that would not be addressed in first iteration: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dq-BeXs0WT8p4jvj4FQ7mPw_lpIU0zqK04o8PBTxSfY/edit#gid=0

    Yongsheng Gao For a template going forward (rather than using as part of QI) I think the 2nd RG (with PPP Disease) is OK.

    Thanks,

    Nicki


    1. Nicki and I discussed that the report is designed to fail if you don't give it any concepts to work on, so that the distinction is clearly made between "I checked a bunch of things and it's all fine" vs "I didn't check a thing".    In this case, ticking off the 'Skip known complete' box is exactly the right thing to do.

  8. Nicola Ingram Sounds like we have ticked all the boxes here.  I think we can move this into PROD and archive the previous version

  9. Thanks Jim CaseI have marked this template as ready for implementation and archived the older v1 template .