Range of joint movement (finding) - v1.0
Status | In PROD |
|---|---|
Version | 1.0 |
Descriptions:
Term | description type | Language/acceptability | Language/acceptability | Case significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
[Interpretation] [range] of [body structure] (finding) | FSN | us:P | gb:P | ci |
[Interpretation] [range] of [body structure] | SYN | us:P | gb:P | ci |
Concept model:
Attribute Cardinality | Attribute | Value | Role group cardinality |
|---|---|---|---|
1..1 | {"timestamp":1789230513015,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} | {"timestamp":1789230513033,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} | N/A |
1..1 | {"timestamp":1789230513062,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} | [body structure] {"timestamp":1789230513012,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"}
| 1..* |
1..1 | {"timestamp":1789230513013,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} | [range] {"timestamp":1789230513053,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} | 1..* |
0..1 | {"timestamp":1789230513045,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} | [Interpretation] {"timestamp":1789230513045,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} |
Definition status:
Applies to:
Template language:
Link to the misaligned concept report:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rnUThBzTYkI9qKI2KkoVlhOvDGe_dMP720_R2r4LeeU/edit#gid=0
Rules for description generation:
JIRA ticket for implementation:
Comments
Hi @Jim Case , I added the template language and tested in the reporting platform. Surprisedly, it did not return any misalignments. I checked some concepts and they should have been reported as misalignments. For example, 7890003 |Contracture of joint (disorder)|. It has additional attribute Associated morphology. So, all subconcepts of |Contracture of joint| should be reported as misaligned to this template.
@Peter Williams Could you please check the reporting platform? It looks like the alignment has included partial matches. We need to report partial matches as misalignment.
Cheers,
Yong
Thanks @Yongsheng Gao, I'll look into that tomorrow. Cheers, Peter
@Yongsheng Gao , thanks for adding this. I had the same issue with the Contracture of joint template, where no concepts were identified as misaligned although I knew there were unresolved issues. Look forward to @Peter Williams analysis
Yes, can you give me an example of a concept that should fail to align, @Jim Case so that I can run it through debug? Thanks!
445505000 |Contracture of joint of spine (disorder)|
203578000 |Plantar flexion contracture of tarsometatarsal joint (disorder)|
Ok thanks. First thing I came across when debugging is that "Has interpretation" && "Interprets" are currently part of our criteria for "Complex" and so those have all been excluded. If you run the compliance report and tick the box for "include complex" then you get 612 mismatches. So that makes a lot more sense!
In the development version, I'm adding the counts for the various reasons that concepts get included / excluded into the 2nd tab, so that will make it more obvious in the future that when "Concepts excluded due to complexity = <the entire subhierarchy>" then that's what's going on.
@Peter Williams 612 mismatches is larger than the whole subhierarchy. The number doesn't jibe with the image either. Can you elucidate?
You're keeping me on my toes Jim!
The screenshot was taken from Development where the new summary code is available. I assume there are fewer concepts there because recent authoring work has been done in Production, hence 530.
Template compliance is performed against the inferred view - since concepts can align even with no stated concepts if their parents are correctly modelled and we copy the inferred modelling into the stated form as part of Normalisation. The inferred view shows this subhierarchy actually contains 642 concepts in production.
Are we good?
@Yongsheng Gao , could you please create the template language for this?