2020-10-21 - SLPG Meeting
Date & Time
20:00 to 21:00 UTC Wednesday 21st October 2020
Location
Zoom meeting link (password: 764978)
Goals
Start development of postcoordination guidance
Attendees
Chair: @Former user (Deleted)
Project Group: @michael lawley, @Peter Jordan (Unlicensed), @Kai Kewley, @Anne Randorff Højen, @Daniel Karlsson, @Ed Cheetham
Apologies
Agenda and Meeting Notes
Description | Owner | Notes |
|---|---|---|
Welcome and agenda | @Former user (Deleted) | NOTE: Next meeting to be held on Wednesday 4th November |
Postcoordination Guidance | @Former user (Deleted) , @Anne Randorff Højen , @Kai Kewley | Practical Guide to Postcoordination
|
|
|
|
Other Options for Future Progress |
|
|
URIs for Extended Editions |
| How to refer to an 'extended edition' using a URI - e.g. "International Edition plus the following 2 nursing modules: 733983009 |IHTSDO Nursing Health Issues module|and 733984003 |IHTSDO Nursing Activities module| Use Case - Need to execute an ECL, that refers to "^ 733991000 | Nursing Health Issues Reference Set (foundation metadata concept) |" and/or "^ 733990004 | Nursing Activities Reference Set (foundation metadata concept) |", where the substrate includes the international edition, plus the modules that include these reference sets July 2020 International Edition URI: http://snomed.info/sct/900000000000207008/version/20200731 July 2020 International Edition + nursing modules URI ?? - For example:
|
Querying Refset Attributes | @Former user (Deleted) | Proposed syntax to support querying and return of alternative refset attributes (To be included in the SNOMED Query Language)
|
Returning Attributes | @michael lawley | Proposal (by Michael) for discussion
For example, I can write: << 404684003|Clinical finding| : 363698007|Finding site| = <<66019005|Limb structure| << 404684003|Clinical finding| . 363698007|Finding site| But I can't get all the attribute names that are used by << 404684003|Clinical finding|
|
Reverse Member Of | @michael lawley | Proposal for discussion What refsets is a given concept (e.g. 421235005 |Structure of femur|) a member of?
|
Expression Templates | @Peter Williams |
Examples: [[+id]]: [[1..*] @my_group sameValue(morphology)] { |Finding site| = [[ +id (<<123037004 |Body structure (body structure)| MINUS << $site[! SELF ] ) @site ]] , |Associated morphology| = [[ +id @my_morphology ]]}
Note that QI Project is coming from a radically different use case. Instead of filling template slots, we're looking at existing content and asking "exactly how does this concept fail to comply to this template?" For discussion: Is it correct to say either one of the cardinality blocks is redundant? What are the implications of 1..1 on either side? This is less obvious for the self grouped case. Road Forward for SI
Additional note: QI project is no longer working in subhierarchies. Every 'set' of concepts is selected via ECL. In fact most reports should now move to this way of working since a subhierarchy is the trivial case. For a given template, we additionally specify the "domain" to which it should be applied via ECL. This is much more specific than using the focus concept which is usually the PPP eg Disease. FYI @Michael Chu |
Description Templates | @Kai Kewley |
|
Query Language
| @Former user (Deleted) | FUTURE WORK Examples: version and dialect
Notes
|
Comments
Thank you so much for taking the time to contribute to this discussion Ed!
I will take a look at the refsets you've suggested before the next meeting, so that we can discuss.
Sorry you can't make the meeting this week .... we will give you an update at the following one.
Kind regards,
Linda.
Hi Linda, all
Regrettably I shan’t be able to attend the next call, but in the meantime a couple of thoughts on where we might focus the post-coordination guidance work…
I wonder if a useful focus for the guidance document, certainly for discussion, might be the two dental reference sets:
721144007 | General dentistry diagnostic reference set
721145008 | Odontogram reference set
Both contain members from a mixture of SNOMED CT chapters (see the two svg’s linked below ([1] and [2]) for a structured/graphical display of membership), and both implicitly (and in the case of the odontgram set - explicitly) require a compositional approach to meet their stated requirements. These are therefore some of the few examples (? only examples) of SI-badged materials that require/expect users to venture into the world of compositional expression creation and post-coordinated classification and analysis.
At present the documentation is fairly vague about how this is to be achieved [3], and really only presents the ECL documentation as further reading. This might help with syntactic aspects, but would be silent on many other things that are needed.
It is perhaps also quite a well-bounded topic (<400 concepts across the two sets), but still manages to touch on a lot of topics which we’ve already identified as worthy of consideration in any implementation guidance:
Various forms of expression creation (site & morphology refinement, laterality issues, context value specification for procedure states, varying situation supertypes for finding context states)
Lack of display names for compositional expressions (including diagram-based data input)
Close-to-user vs. ‘full expression’ recording for refinement (e.g. should the site values in both RGs be specified when 235104008 | Impacted tooth is recorded, or is a close-to-user or ‘intermediate representation’ form preferable?)
Equivalence detection for analysis of merged pre- and post-coordinated data (such as counting up all the impacted and extracted wisdom teeth that are recorded using the odontogram approach or their existing pre-coordinated counterparts!).
Reconciling the use of ‘same-but-different’ morphologic abnormality ‘caries’ values between the two reference sets.
The challenges of composition that is unsupported by the current model: notably it’s a shame that all the tooth surfaces cannot be formally related to their corresponding teeth (how can this be further developed?) and also the inclusion of the qualifier value 63161005 | Principal which is not referenced in any current MRCM attribute range).
? Other areas. Sadly I can’t detect any use of GCIs or other DL exotica, but perhaps others can find them!
Even if it isn’t the primary focus of the work, I think it would be valuable to ensure that the implementation aspects of these reference sets are well supported by the post-coordination guidance as it evolves.
Kind regards
Ed
(right click and 'save as' if the links don't open)
[3] snip from the Odontogram refset release notes (here) - my emphasis:
6.3 The use of expressions
Not all findings/procedures can be represented by a single concept, and the implementation therefore is based on the use of expressions. At this time the aim has been to limit the need for expressions to the combination of two concepts. The introduction of expressions greatly reduces the amount of concepts needed, and in some cases it could ease the implementation, storage and exchange.
The use of expressions relates to:
Caries-finding
Reason for tooth loss
Procedures
For more information on the use of expressions, please refer to the guide on Expression Constraint Language.
6.4 Procedures and restorations present
Procedures will probably benefit the most from use of expressions. A dentist will chart a procedure in several different states. As a finding of a past procedure - finding an "old" restoration, when planning a procedure, when performing a procedure etc. To avoid concept explosion, and to ease implementation, it is recommended that any dental procedure is represented by the use of the appropriate concept from the procedure hierarchy combined with a qualifier value.