Thanks Andy! When do you think you'll have time to look into that comments and see if they can be matched with proper mapping types from 1.9? Below is a full list of predefined mapping types in 1.9:
+---------------------+------------------------------- | concept_map_type_id | name +---------------------+------------------------------- | 1 | SAME-AS | 2 | NARROWER-THAN | 3 | BROADER-THAN | 4 | Associated finding | 5 | Associated morphology | 6 | Associated procedure | 7 | Associated with | 8 | Causative agent | 9 | Finding site | 10 | Has specimen | 11 | Laterality | 12 | Severity | 13 | Access | 14 | After | 15 | Clinical course | 16 | Component | 17 | Direct device | 18 | Direct morphology | 19 | Direct substance | 20 | Due to | 21 | Episodicity | 22 | Finding context | 23 | Finding informer | 24 | Finding method | 25 | Has active ingredient | 26 | Has definitional manifestation | 27 | Has dose form | 28 | Has focus | 29 | Has intent | 30 | Has interpretation | 31 | Indirect device | 32 | Indirect morphology | 33 | Interprets | 34 | Measurement method | 35 | Method | 36 | Occurrence | 37 | Part of | 38 | Pathological process | 39 | Priority | 40 | Procedure context | 41 | Procedure device | 42 | Procedure morphology | 43 | Procedure site | 44 | Procedure site - Direct | 45 | Procedure site - Indirect | 46 | Property | 47 | Recipient category | 48 | Revision status | 49 | Route of administration | 50 | Scale type | 51 | Specimen procedure | 52 | Specimen source identity | 53 | Specimen source morphology | 54 | Specimen source topography | 55 | Specimen substance | 56 | Subject of information | 57 | Subject relationship context | 58 | Surgical approach | 59 | Temporal context | 60 | Time aspect | 61 | Using access device | 62 | Using device | 63 | Using energy | 64 | Using substance | 65 | IS A | 66 | MAY BE A | 67 | MOVED FROM | 68 | MOVED TO | 69 | REPLACED BY | 70 | WAS A +---------------------+------------------------------- -Rafał On 4 May 2012 23:35, Andrew Kanter <andy_kan...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Yes, we did that from IMO and I included in that in some... however, it is > not at all consistent. Where we have it, we should use it. There shouldn't > be dupes with the same map type. I will look through this... > > Thanks! > Andy > > P.S. Great news about MDS... now just need to fix the concepts :) > > *-------------------- > Andrew S. Kanter, MD MPH > > - Director of Health Information Systems/Medical Informatics* > *Millennium Villages Project, Earth Institute, Columbia University* > *- Asst. Prof. of Clinical Biomedical Informatics and Clinical > Epidemiology* > *Columbia University* > > Email: andrew.kan...@dbmi.columbia.edu > Mobile: +1 (646) 469-2421 > Office: +1 (212) 305-4842 > Skype: akanter-ippnw > Yahoo: andy_kanter > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Rafal Korytkowski <ra...@openmrs.org> > *To:* openmrs-deve...@listserv.iupui.edu > *Sent:* Friday, May 4, 2012 11:08 AM > *Subject:* [OPENMRS-DEV] Migrating concept mappings to 1.9 > > Hi Andy, > > We have noticed that MVP uses the comment field in the concept_map table. > We are considering using that to determine the right map type in 1.9. > > I ran the following query select comment, count(*) from concept_map group > by comment; The results are below. I have also added corresponding map > types from 1.9, but I am not sure if they match right now. We could correct > them if needed. > > +----------------------+----------+ > | comment | count(*) | > +----------------------+----------+ > | NULL | 15516 | > | From Excel | 2381 | > | From UMLS RxNORM Map | 3010 | > | Map Type: 1 | 46897 | *(SAME-AS)* > | Map Type: 10 | 1 | *(Has specimen)* > | Map Type: 17 | 5 | *(Direct device)* > | Map Type: 19 | 3 | *(Direct substance)* > | Map Type: 2 | 1880 | *(NARROWER-THAN)* > | Map Type: 24 | 18 | *(Finding method)* > | Map Type: 3 | 30841 | *(BROADER-THAN)* > | Map Type: 4 | 126 | *(Associated finding)* > | Map Type: 5 | 81 | *(Associated morphology)* > | Map Type: 6 | 19 | *(Associated procedure)* > | Map Type: 7 | 2 | *(Associated with)* > +----------------------+----------+ > 14 rows in set (2.12 sec) > > Here's the proposed migration algorithm: > > (1) if the comment matches "Map Type: (\d+)" then use that to determine > the map type, and drop it > > (2) otherwise move the comment to concept_reference_term.description (even > though it doesn't really belong there) > > (3) delete duplicate concept_reference_terms (having same source and > source_code), though this means we may lose some concept_map.comment data > > The reason for these changes is: TRUNK-3296: Found multiple reference terms > https://tickets.openmrs.org/browse/TRUNK-3296 > > -Rafał > ------------------------------ > Click here to > unsubscribe<lists...@listserv.iupui.edu?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from > OpenMRS Developers' mailing list > > > ------------------------------ > Click here to > unsubscribe<lists...@listserv.iupui.edu?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from > OpenMRS Developers' mailing list _________________________________________ To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the body (not the subject) of your e-mail. [mailto:lists...@listserv.iupui.edu?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]
