Descriptions:
| Term | description type | Language/acceptability | Language/acceptability | Case significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grafting of [body structure] (procedure) | FSN | us:P | gb:P | ci |
| Grafting of [body structure] | PT | us:P | gb:P | ci |
| Bone graft of [body structure] | SYN | us:A | gb:A | ci |
example:
Concept model:
| Attribute Group Cardinality | Attribute cardinality | Attribute in Group Cardinality | Attribute | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0..0 | 1..1 | 0..0 | ||
| 1..1 | 1..1 | |||
| 0..1 | [body structure] << 272673000 |Bone structure (body structure)| | |||
| 0..1 | ||||
| 0..1 | 1..1 | |||
| 0..1 |
Definition status:
900000000000073002 |Defined (core metadata concept)|
Applies to:
<<
80983001 |Bone graft (procedure)|
Template language:
[[~1..1]]{
[[~1..1]] 260686004 |Method (attribute)| = 129407005 |Grafting - action (qualifier value)| ,
[[~0..1]] 405813007 |Procedure site - Direct (attribute)| = [[+id(<< 272673000 |Bone structure (body structure)| ) @bodyStructure]],
[[~0..1]] 363701004 |Direct substance (attribute)| = [[+id(<< 261230003 |Bone graft material (substance)| )]]},
[[~0..1]]{
[[~1..1]] 260686004 |Method (attribute)| = [[+id(<< 129377008 |Reconstruction - action (qualifier value)| )]],
[[~0..1]] 405813007 |Procedure site - Direct (attribute)| = [[+id(<< 272673000 |Bone structure (body structure)| ) @bodyStructure]]}
Link to the misaligned concept report:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q5IYBY-gL4dLh9wPTwomI3vYz-RQiUZsZf8ixO6Fb7o/edit#gid=0
Rules for description generation:
- Apply General rules for generating descriptions for templates;
- Apply Enhancements for the Template Language;
JIRA ticket:
INFRA-7956 - Getting issue details... STATUS
8 Comments
Elaine Wooler
Hi. Yongsheng Gao
Would you mind having a look at the template and template language for me please. The vast majority of the content is misaligned to this template as modeled with Procedure site - indirect rather than Procedure site - direct.
Many thanks
Elaine
Yongsheng Gao
Hi Elaine Wooler, I have made minor changes to the description pattern and template language. Should the subconcepts be included for Grafting procedures, e.g. << 129407005 |Grafting - action (qualifier value)|? As discussed in the ticket GC-978 - Getting issue details... STATUS , all bone grafts are for the purpose of reconstructing a missing or new part of bone. In order to be classified under the reconstruction procedure, an additional role group is needed with a method of 129377008 |Reconstruction - action (qualifier value)| and potentially subconcepts of this action.
Cheers,
Yong
cc: Jim Case
Elaine Wooler
Thanks Yongsheng Gao I wasn't thinking of including the subtypes of 129407005 |Grafting - action (qualifier value)|, there are a few instances I have found of use of these subtypes as actions for a small number of concepts under 80983001 |Bone graft (procedure)| but I don't think they are correct. I'll look in to it in more detail though.
I can add the additional role group for reconstruction as you suggest though I think it should be an optional role group as there are a handful of outliers that I wouldn't see as reconstruction but fixation/immobilisation using a bone graft e.g. 68816005 |Fusion of joint with bone graft (procedure)|, 53976000 |Arthrodesis by anterior interbody technique of cervical region below C2 with bone graft (procedure)| which are descendants of both 80983001 |Bone graft (procedure)| and 19578002 |Arthrodesis (procedure)|.
cc: Jim Case
Jim Case
Elaine Wooler,
Thanks for your identification of exceptions to the additional "Reconstruction" RG for bone grafts. I think this would warrant a brief paragraph in the editorial guide to explain when "reconstruction" is NOT used to show why the additional RG is optional.
Elaine Wooler
Additional optional RG added and template language updated. Successfully ran in the template compliance report but Yongsheng Gaoplease amend if any errors.
cc: Jim Case
Elaine Wooler
Yongsheng Gao I think this is ready for production now?
Thanks
Elaine
Yongsheng Gao
Hi Elaine Wooler, I have updated the format for cardinality. Please add the link to the misalignment report which you worked on.
Cheers,
Yong
Elaine Wooler
Hi Yongsheng Gaoadded the misaligned report. The majority were misaligned. I can run it again once the task is promoted.
Cheers
Elaine