Arthrotomy (procedure) - v0.9 - Ready for review
Status | Ready for review |
|---|---|
Version | 0.9 |
Descriptions:
Term | description type | Language/acceptability | Language/acceptability | Case significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Arthrotomy of [body structure] (procedure) | FSN | us:P | gb:P | ci |
Arthrotomy of [body structure] | PT | us:P | gb:P | ci |
Incision of [body structure] | SYN | us:A | gb:A | ci |
example:
Concept model:
Attribute Group Cardinality | Attribute Cardinality | Attribute in Group Cardinality | Attribute | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
0..0 | 1..1 |
|
{"timestamp":1794273578938,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} |
{"timestamp":1794273578898,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} |
0..1 |
| 0..1 | {"timestamp":1794273578885,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} | {"timestamp":1794273578904,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} |
1..* |
| 1..1 |
{"timestamp":1794273578919,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} | {"timestamp":1794273578886,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} |
| 1..1 |
{"timestamp":1794273578891,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} |
{"timestamp":1794273578888,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} | |
| 0..1 | |||
0..* |
| 1..1 | ||
| 0..1 | |||
| 0..1 | |||
| 0..1 | |||
| 0..1 | |||
| 0..1 | |||
| 0..1 | |||
| 0..1 |
Definition status:
Applies to:
Template language:
Link to the misaligned concept report:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13cp1b-5SNWsPDy_i9e7LuMFOcJJZwrTA-Mb34xhzP0k/edit#gid=0
Rules for description generation:
JIRA ticket:
Comments
Hi Jim Case, the misaligned report seems to be for the 150062003 |Osteotomy (procedure)|. The reporting platform does not seem to be working. Please see my query which only use single role group for the 'pure' arthrotomy. It should report some errors for those combined procedures, e.g. arthrotomy with removal or drainage.
Peter Williams could you please check if the reporting platform is working properly?
Hi Yongsheng Gao, no, unfortunately I added optional behaviour to allow us to run against the stated hierarchy, but the 'optional' bit didn't work so you're currently missing all 'only inferred' children. I'll run this template on my local machine in the morning. The fix for this is expected to go into production on 19 Jan.
How's this one (run locally)? I see Anthrotomy of knee with drainage is the first one returned: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Gpg_7XQAJmqS60GU7Ri7n8WDoBfx9XuPySN7QSdkm2U/edit#gid=0
Thanks Peter Williams, this looks much 'better' . Could you please run the report by excluding the complex associations as well? Have a nice weekend!
Sure Yongsheng Gao, although our definition of "complex" excludes concepts featuring the word "with" in the FSN, so you'll no longer see the example concept you mentioned above - arthrotomy with removal or drainage.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aY3OXEhB0o7Mqrt8qGCOIDq65ol82VIHq_v6HcMOLKw/edit#gid=1
Thanks Peter Williams
Yongsheng Gao or Peter Williams Can someone explain the misaligned report for me? There are many concepts that on the surface, to me, look to be conformant with the template.
Yes it's horribly terse that report. I'd love to see if we could put time into some colour highlighting or maybe even just an extra line to say exactly which attribute type or value contravened which rule.
I'll add a column (manually) to that report and see if I can work out what the infraction was. If there are any that you particularly think should be fine, Jim Case, if you colour highlight them or something I'll prioritise those.
The first one I check was correctly reported due to having "Using Device" and "Using Access Device" which are not allowed by the template.
But the 2nd one should have been fine as far as I can tell. I'll run again to see if the latest code is any better and if not put it into debug. Please leave it with me Jim Case
HA HA, found it! Just as I was about to run this locally in a line-by-line debug ie the programmatic equivalent of a fine-toothed comb. The slot in template role group 1 is missing the "descendant or self" symbol : [[+id( 129287005 |Incision - action (qualifier value)| )]] so 129298006 |Division - action (qualifier value)|, isn't acceptable because we're not allowing descendants of Incision, which it is.
Adjusting and re-running now...
How does this look Jim Case ? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ImWRffhe8o-xRAMKnDphMa0r9SFSDRN5_Uy_JDVT77g/edit#gid=0
Yongsheng Gao
This template is ready for review