As a clinician Id really like to see the types that Melissa has elicited from physicians.
By the by: Id call apgar, or duke, or has bled score, or chads vasc, or childs criteria, or anything else like them risk classifiers or prognosticators or decision models or something like that (the line between is fuzzy sometimes). JG — On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Wu, Stephen T., Ph.D. <[email protected]> wrote: > The type system needs some updating. Here are some reasons: > 1. The refsem and textsem namespaces were created to reflect the Secondary > Use Clinical Element Models (CEMs) defined in the SHARP project. However, > later modification to those models are not reflected in the cTAKES type > system. > 2. Wendy Chapman, Melissa Tharp, et al (CC'ed here) have done some > quantitative studies showing that physicians do not easily categorize their > named entities of interest into cTAKES types. For example, even if we could > pick up values (as James mentioned, we don't pick up many), how would you > categorize an Apgar score? That kind of thing is not exactly a Procedure, > Lab, or SignSymptom -- at least, physicians don't seem to think so. > 3. We have been using the type system for a while and it might be due time > for some ground-up modifications (though I do think this is more of an > ongoing task). > The courses of action we can take are aligned somewhat to these different > reasons. > I. Try to reconcile the CEMs with the Type System. Here is a diff, put > together by Melissa Tharp: > http://bit.ly/WkqCPa > I feel like this will be quite complicated, especially given the differences > between Assertion and SignSymptom. Also, if we add everything from the CEMs, > that significantly adds to the Modifiers that we have to create to house > those types. Each attribute of a CEM may require its own processing and > evaluation (i.e., you might need a dedicated analysis engine just to discover > DiseaseDisorder:severity), but in practice there may be too many options of > types and attributes. > II. Follow the work being done on physician-validated types. Melissa might > be able to put together another document with the differences between their > resulting types (Schema Ontology) and our Type System. We could then use > this to update the types with what physicians are actually looking for. > III. Solicit user/developer-initiated changes, to be made at the same time as > one or both of the above. > What does everyone think? > stephen > P.S. Please use [email protected] or [email protected] for future > correspondence!
