Next week sounds good, Jim.

Cohort characterization is something that's on the LEC 2015 agenda (as far back 
as Aug 6 
draft<http://listserv.kumc.edu/pipermail/gpc-all/2015-August/000144.html>) and 
involves Alex. I'm still learning what cohort characterization is, so whether 
it overlaps with data characterization or data standardization is hard for me 
to tell.

As to what is planned for which days, the agendas are on the LEC 2015 
page<http://www.gpcnetwork.org/?q=LEK2015>. I gather the allocation of topics 
to times is pretty firm by now, though I think some elaboration on the 
break-out topics is in progress. I don't see any sessions dedicated 
specifically to data standardization topics, though some topics look at least 
tangentially related (e.g. record linkage), especially since all of our data 
standardization work takes requirements from research studies.

--
Dan

________________________________________
From: Campbell, James R [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 6:07 AM
To: [email protected]; Dan Connolly; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; McClay, James C
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [gpc-informatics] #191: represent PCORI CDM 2.x terminology as 
i2b2 metadata

Dan
Seeing that Jeff is proposing to discuss SCILHS and CDM during the 9/22 call 
(tomorrow), I will plan to speak next week about UNMC deployment since I just 
got back into town last night and I am scrambling to pull the documentation 
together from Hubert's departure. I will be assembling the ETLs and metadata 
builds that UNMC has deployed for our network and distributing prior to that.

I was surprised when the Data Characterization work showed up on the LEK 
agenda. I had been told there would be no data standardization activity during 
this round of meetings and had not planned to attend. Will GPC's CDM build be 
part of that discussion that I heard you assign to Alex or are there other 
issues planned? What day would those discussions be?
Jim

________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on 
behalf of GPC Informatics [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 2:15 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [gpc-informatics] #191: represent PCORI CDM 2.x terminology as 
i2b2 metadata

#191: represent PCORI CDM 2.x terminology as i2b2 metadata
-----------------------+----------------------------
Reporter: dconnolly | Owner: dconnolly
Type: problem | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: data-domains3
Component: data-stds | Resolution:
Keywords: | Blocked By: 109
Blocking: 317 |
-----------------------+----------------------------

Comment (by lv):

Eric's notes from implementing SCILHS at MCRF:

\PCORI\DEMOGRAPHIC\HISPANIC\ - This was using Race_CD in
Patient_Dimension. We fill race with race, not ethnicity (the Race codes
were also using this column). I switch this over to use our local
basecode and pointed at Concept_Dimension instead.

\PCORI\ENROLLMENT\ENR_BASIS\*\ - I thought the mappings in this section
were a little odd…
Encounter-based: would pull a count of patients that had atleast one fact
that had a start_date.
Insurance: would always be 0. (not available for selection in i2b2)
Geography: was based on having the code LOCATION_CODE:2. We don’t have
any location codes, so this would never work (again not available for
selection in i2b2)
Algorithmic: would be the same as Encounter-based.

I switch them to be based on \i2b2\Demographics\Enrollment\ terms
Encounter-based: Is in one of the two nodes: Face to Face Visit Within One
Year or Two Encounters or Wellness Within 3 Years (Added two children to
accomplish)
Insurance: Is in Insurance
Geography: Is in Patients Within 50 Miles
Algorithmic: Is in MCRF Catchment

\PCORI\ENROLLMENT\ENR_BASIS\ - This had a C_FACTTABLECOLUMN value of
PATIENT_NUM, since I made the above changes to
\PCORI\ENROLLMENT\ENR_BASIS\*\, I had to update this to concept_cd. (This
node is also disable in the hierarchy)

OTHER NOTES
I also didn’t do much with modifier’s in the ontology. I know the
‘\PCORI_MOD\CHART\’, which is applied to ‘\PCORI\ENROLLMENT\ENR_BASIS\*\’,
is all hardcoded to be true or false. So Yes to chart will always be true
and all the other modifiers will always be false. There may be more
examples of this, but like I said, I didn’t spend much time on modifier’s.

--
Ticket URL: 
<http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/191#comment:15>
gpc-informatics <http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/>
Greater Plains Network - Informatics
_______________________________________________
Gpc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev

The information in this e-mail may be privileged and confidential, intended 
only for the use of the addressee(s) above. Any unauthorized use or disclosure 
of this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, 
please delete it and immediately contact the sender.

_______________________________________________
Gpc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev

Reply via email to