No, we don't have a proposed demographics hierarchy; at least not in the GPC section of babel. All we have so far is Diagnoses, Meds (Drug Products by VA Class) and LOINC Codes (a mix of labs and other stuff). We seem to be iterating between the overall design issue (#114) and the specific parts (e.g. demographics #67). In this case, it really would be nicer to be further along on the specifics.
Meanwhile, as noted in #67, we do have a PCORI demographics term hierarchy, and as far as I know, it suffices for GPC purposes. I'm not aware that we need any finer distinctions w.r.t. age, sex, race, nor ethnicity. Oh... and "A leading proposal was to follow i2b2's [demo] ontology". While paths like \GPC\Patient\... are handy for debugging, I'm agnostic about using less mnemonic standardized codes (as we're doing for Diagnoses) as long as I know how to look up the codes. But 29694-4 doesn't give any results when I try to Search by Codes. I lose at search.loinc.org too. 42784-9 looks fine: Ethnic background stated. I was hoping that Jim's proposal would take the form of actual i2b2 queries that he had executed, either as XML in the document or as queries on babel. For some terms, he might have to use something from the UNMC hierarchy or another site and explain how the relevant terms would end up in a shared GPC ontology. -- Dan ________________________________________ From: Phillip Reeder [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 12:36 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Dan Connolly; [email protected] Subject: Re: [gpc-informatics] #114: Milestone 2.7 GPC harmonizes with PCORI CDM V1.0 Regarding specifically the PATIENTS section of document, do we have a proposed hierarchy for the patient demographics? Jim lists a path like: '\LP29694-4\LP7850-3\42784-9\%¹ (Ethnicity) But I¹m not sure where that path came from. I think if it were created on Babel and looked something like: \GPC\Patient\Ethnicity (L????) where the ?? Is the code the loinc experts decide on. Then the document would be consistent with the shared hierarchy that everyone is mapping to. For me, working in i2b2, that is more intuitive than the paths/codes that are currently shown in the document. It would look very much like the PCORI terminologies that Dan created a while ago. The same could be done for vitals with a Œ\GPC\Vitals\¹ hierarchy and other data types. Phillip On 6/16/14, 10:08 AM, "GPC Informatics" <[email protected]> wrote: >#114: Milestone 2.7 GPC harmonizes with PCORI CDM V1.0 >----------------------------------------------+--------------------------- >- > Reporter: campbell | Owner: campbell > Type: task | Status: accepted > Priority: major | Milestone: >initial-data- >Component: data-stds | domains > Keywords: PCORI CDM V1, GPC data standards | Resolution: > Blocking: | Blocked By: 17, 23, 67, > | 120 >----------------------------------------------+--------------------------- >- > >Comment (by nathan.wilson): > > Attached part I of my comments here: > >https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/attachment/ticket/114/Mile >stone_27_TestSQLv4_nsw_comments_part_i.docx > > These comments focus mainly on the current selection of LOINC codes which > are to be used in the queries. Once I know what the purpose and the > expected results are, I will comment on the SQL queries themselves. > >-- >Ticket URL: ><http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/114#comment:20> >gpc-informatics <http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/> >Greater Plains Network - Informatics >_______________________________________________ >Gpc-dev mailing list >[email protected] >http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev ________________________________ UT Southwestern Medical Center The future of medicine, today. _______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
