one-to-many term bindings in archetypes

Daniel Karlsson daniel.karlsson at liu.se
Tue Mar 31 03:54:09 EDT 2015


Hi Everyone,

there are multiple, equally correct/useful/etc. perspectives on reality
and that is not a situation SNOMED CT or any other terminology/ontology
can ever resolve. No terminology will ever be perfect since 1. "perfect"
is not unequivocally defined, 2. human effort is error prone, 3.
computational complexity limits use of technology. Imperfections are
probably easier to agree on ;) and SNOMED CT has its fair share of
those. However, quality programs have continuously improved the
situation.

Then, within those boundaries terminologies can be used, through term
binding [ADL2, 8.11.4], to add external references to the meaning of
archetype nodes. If the meaning of the archetype node is not clear,
neither will any term binding be. Term binding is not only useful when
comparing data to other IM frameworks, e.g. Act.code is often used
corresponding to an ELEMENT term binding, but also to maintain a larger
set of archetypes by allowing e.g. terminology-based queries.

In the example presented, there are at least three alternatives for term
binding OBSERVATION archetypes to SNOMED CT: a procedure, a finding, and
an observable entity. We would just have to agree on a set of patterns
for how (and if) to bind to ENTRY-ies, ELEMENTs etc. based on our
understanding of the meaning of the archetype nodes. A very tentative
such pattern for OBSERVATIONs could be:
OBSERVATION --> term-bind to <<386053000 | evaluation procedure
(procedure) |
ELEMENT --> term-bind to <<363787002 | observable entity (observable
entity) |

/Daniel

On sön, 2015-03-29 at 22:10 +0100, Thomas Beale wrote:
> Hi Pablo,
> 
> 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.
> 
> - thomas
> 
> On 29/03/2015 18:15, pablo pazos wrote:
> 
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > 
> > 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"
> > http://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/SNOMEDCT?p=classes&conceptid=163020007
> > 
> > 
> > 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 second.
> > 
> > 
> > Is this approach right? Should we support one-to-many term bindings
> > in archetypes?
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org





More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list