one-to-many term bindings in archetypes
thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com
Sun Mar 29 17:10:36 EDT 2015
I presented to IHTSDO in about 2010 (PDF here
on the problem of multiple possible bindings in SNOMED CT for a given
term. The problem is mainly that SNOMED has problems, not that it has
multiple codes that we should legitimately bind to. There are
overlapping concepts, duplicate concepts, wrong concepts, and right
concepts. Of the 'right' ones, only some or none may correspond to the
concept for a given node in the archetype.
SNOMED CT is getting better, and someone like Daniel Karlsson would be
able to give a better idea of how 'clean' it is today.
You'll see some examples (BP and others) about 1/3 of the way in.
On 29/03/2015 18:15, pablo pazos wrote:
> I was reviewing some archetypes and on the "term_bindings" section
> there are always one-to-one bindings.
> I think we can have many codes in one terminology corresponding to one
> at code in the archetype, e.g. in the blood pressure archetype we have:
> term_bindings = <
> ["SNOMED-CT"] = <
> items = <
> ["at0000"] = <[SNOMED-CT(2003)::163020007]> -- Blood Pressure
> Looking for the 163020007 code in SNOMED, that corresponds to "On
> Examination Blood Pressure Reading"
> There is another concept "Blood pressure taking"
> http://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/SNOMEDCT?p=classes&conceptid=46973005 that
> IMO also can correspond to the concept in the archetype.
> Depending no context, some may use the first code, others may use the
> Is this approach right? Should we support one-to-many term bindings in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openEHR-clinical