10756101000119107 |Group B streptococcus infection in mother complicating childbirth (disorder)| is stated as a child of 32801000119106 |Infectious disease in mother complicating childbirth (disorder)|, which makes it a descendant of 40733004 |Infectious disease (disorder)|. However, it has an acceptable synonym of "Group B streptococcus carrier in childbirth". So, carrier of B streptococcus in childbirth = to infection of streptococcus B in childbirth. Normally a carrier of a germ isn't an infection by that germ. It's a finding of a risk of infection, here a risk of infection to the baby not to the mother actually.
When you look at the carrier concepts, these are children of 66598005 |Infectious disease carrier (finding)| which are descendants of 105724001 |Disease related state (finding)| and not children of 40733004 |Infectious disease (disorder)|.
Should the modelling of 120001000119107 |Group B streptococcus carrier complicating pregnancy (disorder)| be revised and is it medically ok to have 'carrier' as a synonym of infection for 10756101000119107 |Group B streptococcus infection in mother complicating childbirth (disorder)?
2 Comments
Krista Lilly
Hi Katrien Scheerlinck
You are correct in this needed change. If you submit a CRS request, the Content Team will look at amending this concept. Thanks for bringing this to our attention!
Matt Cordell
Currently the subtypes of 66598005|Infectious disease carrier (finding)| are modelled the same an "infection", with the addition of "interprets=General clinical state" (which doesn't really say anything, and inherited form much further up the hierarchy).
I feel like we need a "pathologic process" less specific than infection to represent this... something like "colonised".
Because arguably these concepts ARE infections. They're asymptomatic (as opposed to symptomatic) infections. (Which is probably a better FSN for these)
See: 699433000|HIV carrier| - does this person have an "HIV infection"?
Symptomatic infections are also "carriers" too...
There was a discussion years somewhere about commensal organisms and pathogenic organisms, and parasitism.
I wonder if this was perhaps the orginal intention of the "pathologic process heirarchy"? With "parasitic process" being a subtype of "infections process".
"Infection"==colonised. "parasitism" == harm to the host.
The current use of a different process (parasitic) for subset of organisms (parasites) - has always seemed like a tautology.