SNOMED CT Languages Project Group

Space shortcuts

Page tree

Date & Time

20:00 to 21:00 UTC Thursday 24th February 2022

Location

Zoom meeting link (password: 764978)

Goals

  • ECL v2.0 feedback and finalisation
  • ECL v2.1 - Proposals for new features

Attendees 


Agenda and Meeting Notes

Description

Owner

Notes

Welcome and agenda

All
  • Next meeting - 10th March 2022
    • Progress ECL 2.1 ideas
ECL v2.0 - Access to refsets and historical supplementsAll

Expression Constraint Language 2.0 WIP

Feedback from Michael, B2i, Jeremy, etc.

Please review updates to the following pages:

ECL v2.1 - Requirement proposalsAll

Potential requirements for ECL v2.1 - Discussion and brainstorming

  • Daniel's comments (see below)
  • Context supplements - e.g.
    • << 56265001 |Heart disease|  {{ + CONTEXT }} – probably exclude due to risk of absent finding, not-done procedure and family history
      • OR {{ + CONTEXT-DEFAULT }} ?
      • Expansion of [[@ecl_query]] {{ + Context (Temporal = [[ @temporal_value]] }}
        • [[ @ecl_query ]] OR  (< 243796009 |Situation with explicit context|:
                  { ( 246090004 |Associated finding| = ( [[ @ecl_query ]] ) 
                         OR |Associated procedure| = ( [[ @ecl_query ]] )
        •             ( |Procedure context| = |Done| OR |Finding context| = |Known present|),
                      |Subject relationship context| = |Subject of record|,
                       |Temporal context| = [[ @temporal_value ]] } )
      • Example 1: << |Heart procedure| {{ + Context (Temporal = *) }}
        • <<  |Heart procedure| OR  (< 243796009 |Situation with explicit context|:
                  { 246090004 |Associated finding| = << 56265001 |Heart disease|,
                      |Procedure context| = |Done|,
                      |Subject relationship context| = |Subject of record|,
                       |Temporal context| = * } )
        • Example 2: (<< |Heart disease| OR << |Heart procedure| ) {{ + Context (Temporal = *) }}
          • <<  |Heart procedure| OR  (< 243796009 |Situation with explicit context|:
                    { ( 246090004 |Associated finding| = (<< |Heart disease| OR << |Heart procedure| ) 
                           OR |Associated procedure| = ( << |Heart disease| OR << |Heart procedure| ) )
                        ( |Procedure context| = |Done| OR |Finding context| = |Known present|),
                        |Subject relationship context| = |Subject of record|,
                         |Temporal context| = * } )
      • << 56265001 |Heart disease| {{ + Context (Temporal = *, FindingContext=<<|Known present| }}
        • Will return all types of heart disease, plus concepts like 394886001 |Suspected heart disease (situation)|, and 429007001 |History of cardiac arrest (situation)|
        • Expands to: 

          • << 56265001 |Heart disease| OR
              (< 243796009 |Situation with explicit context|:
                    { 246090004 |Associated finding| = << 56265001 |Heart disease| } )

    • However, you may want to exclude (or include) specific contexts - for example:
      1. To ensure that the finding was about the subject of the record (and not a family history, e.g. to exclude 429959009 |Family history of heart failure (situation)|), you could say:
        • << 56265001 |Heart disease|  {{ + CONTEXT (relationship = 410604004 |Subject of record| }}
      2. To ensure that the finding was 'Known present' (e.g. to exclude 394926003 |Heart disease excluded (situation)|), you could say:
        • << 56265001 |Heart disease|  {{ + CONTEXT (finding_context = << 410515003 |Known present| }}
      3. To ensure that the finding was about the subject of the record AND known present, you could say:
        • << 56265001 |Heart disease|  {{ + CONTEXT (relationship = 410604004 |Subject of record|, 
                                                                                                    finding_context = << 410515003 |Known present| }}
      4. ?? Is there any use case for restricting adding temporal context? (e.g. temporal != << 410513005 |In the past|)
    • Is any more syntactic sugar required? E.g.
      • {{ + CONTEXT (relationship = self, finding context = present, temporal != past) }}
      • {{ + CONTEXT (self, present, ! past) }}
    • Other ideas? Common profiles?
  • --------------------------
  • Ability to return attribute types (see proposal below)
    • [ attributes ] << 125605004 |Fracture of bone (disorder)|
    • << 125605004 |Fracture of bone (disorder)| . Attributes
    • << 125605004 |Fracture of bone (disorder)| . (<< 125605004 |Fracture of bone (disorder)| . Attributes )
    • [ attribute, value] << 125605004 |Fracture of bone (disorder)|
  • -------------------------
  • Reverse membership (see below)
    • Which reference sets "contain" the given concept(s) - e.g. 421235005 |Structure of femur|?
      • 421235005 |Structure of femur| . Refsets
      • 421235005 |Structure of femur|. Refsets [ referencedComponentId ]
      • 421235005 |Structure of femur| . Refsets [ targetComponentId ]
  • --------------------------
  • Other?
Returning AttributesMichael Lawley
  • Currently ECL expressions can match (return) concepts that are either the source or the target of a relationship triple (target is accessed via the 'reverse' notation or 'dot notation', but not the relationship type (ie attribute name) itself. 

For example, I can write: 

<< 404684003|Clinical finding| : 363698007|Finding site| = <<66019005|Limb structure| 

<< 404684003|Clinical finding| . 363698007|Finding site| 

But I can't get all the attribute names that are used by << 404684003|Clinical finding| 

    • Perhaps something like:
      • ? R.type ? (<< 404684003 |Clinical finding|)
    • This could be extended to, for example, return different values - e.g.
      • ? |Simple map refset|.|maptarget| ? (^|Simple map refset| AND < |Fracture|)
Reverse Member OfMichael Lawley

What refsets is a given concept (e.g. 421235005 |Structure of femur|) a member of?

  • Possible new notation for this:
    • ^ . 421235005 |Structure of femur|
    • ? X ? 421235005 |Structure of femur| = ^ X
The items below are currently on hold
Postcoordination Topics
  • Discuss feedback on transformation implementation
    • Resources
    • Recap of SNOMED on FHIR discussions
      • What is the functionality scope of a terminology server that supports postcoordination? For example, does it include:
        • Classifying multiple expressions in a single substrate? What are the use cases for this?
        • Assigning (local) identifiers to expressions? What are the use cases for this?
        • Autogenerating or assigning a term to an expression? What are the use cases for this?
      • Does a terminology server that supports postcoordination, include all the functions of an expression repository?
      • What is the relationship between a terminology server that supports postcoordination, and an expression repository?
    • Outstanding questions
      • What are the pros and cons of extending SCG to allow an expression as the focus of a postcoordinated expression?
        • Note: This was raised in context of a NNF generated over a postcoordinated substrate, where the proximal parent is an expression
      • Example of using expressions in focus concept
        • ( 125605004 |Fracture of bone|:363698007 |finding site| = 84167007 |Foot bone| ) : 
          272741003 |Laterality| = 7771000 |Left|
        • 125605004 |Fracture of bone|:363698007 |finding site| = 84167007 |Foot bone| , 
          272741003 |Laterality| = 7771000 |Left|
      • What is the expected NNF when classifying an expression that is equivalent to a precoordinated concept? For example:
        • Expression that is equivalent to 111273006 |Acute respiratory disease|
        • 64572001 | Disease (disorder) | :
          {263502005 |Clinical course (attribute)| = 424124008 |Sudden onset AND/OR short duration (qualifier value)|}
          {363698007 |Finding site (attribute)| = 89187006 |Airway structure (body structure)|}
        • Options:
          1. 111273006 |Acute respiratory disease| :
            {263502005 |Clinical course| = 424124008 |Sudden onset AND/OR short duration|}
            {363698007 |Finding site| = 89187006 |Airway structure|}
          2. 50043002 |Disorder of respiratory system (disorder)| +
            2704003 |Acute disease (disorder)| :
            {263502005 |Clinical course| = 424124008 |Sudden onset AND/OR short duration|}
            {363698007 |Finding site| = 89187006 |Airway structure|}
          3. Other?
    • Recap of internal discussions with Content Team
      • Inter-attribute dependencies
      • Grouping rules
Dynamic Templates
  • Continue discussion on dynamic templates
    • Inter-attribute dependencies
      • Acute/Chronic and Inflammation - Adding a clinical course requires specializing the inflammation morphology (question)
        • E.g. |Pyelonephritis| : |Clinical course| = |Chronic|
          should be
          |Pyelonephritis| : |Clinical course| = |Chronic|, |Associated morphology| = |Chronic inflammation|
        • E.g. |Pyelonephritis| : |Clinical course| = |Sudden onset AND/OR short duration|
          should be
          |Pyelonephritis| : {|Clinical course| = |Sudden onset AND/OR short duration||, |Associated morphology| = |Acute inflammation|
      • Infectious Causative Agents - Adding a |causative agent| = |Domain Bacteria| or |Virus| requires adding a |Pathological process| = |Infectious process|
        • E.g. |Nephritis|: |Causative agent| = |Domain bacteria|
          should be
          |Nephritis|: |Causative agent| = |Domain bacteria|, |Pathological process| = |Infectious process|
      • Congenital and Acquired - Adding an |Occurrence| of |Congenital| to a focus concept with an abnormal morphology, requires adding a |Pathological process| of |Pathological development process|
        • E.g. |Koilonychia|: |Occurrence| = |Congenital|
          should be
          |Koilonychia|: |Occurrence| = |Congenital|, |Pathological process| = |Pathological developmental process|
      • Situations with Explicit Context 
      1. if the procedure context = |Planned|, then the temporal context should be << |Current of specified time|
        1. If the procedure context = |In progress|, then the temporal context should be << |Current|
        2. If the procedure context = |Performed| or |Done|, then the temporal context should be << |Current or past (actual)|
      • Note: for this use case (of |Procedure with explicit context|) perhaps we just recommend (or require) that the full role group is spelled out.
      • Next steps
        • Representation of the content rules
          • Who creates the complete list of rules and how?
            • What formalism?
            • Determine which are mandatory and which are optional
          • Implementation of content rules - e.g.
            • Guided data entry by pre-populating role groups in expression template based on definition of focus concepts (for design-time use, such as mapping)
            • Mandatory content rules could be added to transform process
Postcoordination Use Case ExamplesAll

Example 1 - Dentistry / Odontogram

  • Requires an expression template to create expressions.
  • Resulting expression still requires a transformation to make it classifiable

Example 2 - Terminology binding

  • Uses a fixed expression template to combine codes entered into separate fields
  • The procedure+laterality example still requires a transformation to make it classifiable

Example 3 - Mapping

  • Design-time activity
  • Map targets may not be able to be fully represented using concept model attributes
  • In many cases, an extension (with primitive concepts) should be recommended where there are gaps in the mapping
  • There may be some cases in which postcoordination is helpful (e.g. LOINC to SNOMED CT map)

Example 4 - Natural Language Processing

  • Usually run-time activity.
  • May require manual confirmation of coding suggestions (unless low clinical risk, eg for suggesting relevant patient records for manual review)
Postcoordination Guidance

Linda Bird , Anne Randorff Højen , Kai Kewley

Practical Guide to Postcoordination

  • Proposal - Use syntax (i.e. braces) to distinguish refinement vs new role group
  • Proposal: Expression forms needed for this (see 3.4 Transforming Expressions)
    • Close to user form - e.g. 83152002 |Oophorectomy| :  405815000 |Procedure device|  =  122456005 |Laser device|
    • Canonical close to user form - e.g. 83152002:405815000=122456005
    • Classifiable form (SCG) - e.g. 83152002:{260686004=129304002,405813007=15497006,405815000=122456005}
      • PLUS Classifiable form (OWL) - e.g.  
        • EquivalentClasses(:123063
             ObjectIntersectionOf (:71388002
                 ObjectSomeValuesFrom(:609096000 ObjectIntersectionOf( ObjectSomeValuesFrom(:260686004 :129304002)
                 ObjectSomeValuesFrom(:405813007 :15497006))))
    • Necessary normal form - e.g. 83152002+416376001:{260686004=129304002,405813007=15497006,405815000=122456005}
      • PLUS Necessary normal form (tables)
        • Relationships:
          • (123063 116680003 83152002) - 0
          • (123063 260686004 129304002) - 0 
          • (123063 405813007 15497006) - 1
          • (123063 405815000 122456005) - 1
    • Primitive expressions - "<<<" (only useful in a mapping context) → .... relies on the assigned identifier (which are necessarily semantically unique).
The items below are currently on hold
URIs for Extended Editions

ON HOLD - How to refer to an 'extended edition' using a URI - e.g. "International Edition plus the following 2 nursing modules: 733983009  |IHTSDO Nursing Health Issues module|and 733984003 |IHTSDO Nursing Activities module|

Use Case - Need to execute an ECL, that refers to "^ 733991000 | Nursing Health Issues Reference Set (foundation metadata concept) |" and/or "^ 733990004 | Nursing Activities Reference Set (foundation metadata concept) |", where the substrate includes the international edition, plus the modules that include these reference sets

July 2020 International Edition URI: http://snomed.info/sct/900000000000207008/version/20200731

July 2020 International Edition + nursing modules URI ?? - For example:

Expression Templates

Peter G. Williams

  • ON HOLD WAITING FROM IMPLEMENTATION FEEDBACK FROM INTERNAL TECH TEAM
  • WIP version - https://confluence.ihtsdotools.org/display/WIPSTS/Template+Syntax+Specification
      • Added a 'default' constraint to each replacement slot - e.g. default (72673000 |Bone structure (body structure)|)
      • Enabling 'slot references' to be used within the value constraint of a replacement slot - e.g. [[ +id (<< 123037004 |Body structure| MINUS << $findingSite2) @findingSite1]]
      • Allowing repeating role groups to be referenced using an array - e.g. $rolegroup[1] or $rolegroup[!=SELF]
      • Allow reference to 'SELF' in role group arrays
      • Adding 'sameValue' and 'allOrNone' constraints to information slots - e.g. sameValue ($site), allOrNone ($occurrence)
      • See changes in red here: 5.1. Normative Specification

Examples:

[[+id]]: [[1..*] @my_group sameValue(morphology)] { |Finding site| = [[ +id (<<123037004 |Body structure (body structure)| MINUS << $site[! SELF ] ) @site ]] , |Associated morphology| = [[ +id @my_morphology ]] }

  • Implementation feedback on draft updates to Expression Template Language syntax
    • Use cases from the Quality Improvement Project:
      • Multiple instances of the same role group, with some attributes the same and others different. Eg same morphology, potentially different finding sites.

Note that QI Project is coming from a radically different use case. Instead of filling template slots, we're looking at existing content and asking "exactly how does this concept fail to comply to this template?"

For discussion:

 [[0..1]] { [[0..1]]   246075003 |Causative agent|  = [[+id (<   410607006 |Organism| ) @Organism]] }

Is it correct to say either one of the cardinality blocks is redundant? What are the implications of 1..1 on either side? This is less obvious for the self grouped case.

Road Forward for SI

  1. Generate the parser from the ABNF and implement in the Template Service
  2. User Interface to a) allow users to specify template at runtime b) tabular (auto-completion) lookup → STL
  3. Template Service to allow multiple templates to be specified for alignment check (aligns to none-off)
  4. Output must clearly indicate exactly what feature of concept caused misalignment, and what condition was not met.

Additional note: QI project is no longer working in subhierarchies. Every 'set' of concepts is selected via ECL. In fact most reports should now move to this way of working since a subhierarchy is the trivial case. For a given template, we additionally specify the "domain" to which it should be applied via ECL. This is much more specific than using the focus concept which is usually the PPP eg Disease.

FYI Michael Chu

Description TemplatesKai Kewley
  • ON HOLD
  • Previous discussion (in Malaysia)
      • Overview of current use
      • Review of General rules for generating descriptions
        • Removing tags, words
        • Conditional removal of words
        • Automatic case significance
        • Generating PTs from target PTs
        • Reordering terms
      • Mechanism for sharing general rules - inheritance? include?
      • Description Templates for translation
      • Status of planned specification

  File Modified
No files shared here yet.

Agenda and Meeting Notes
  • No labels

5 Comments

  1. Daniel Karlsson

    I have some random findings for discussion at some time:

    1. Linda Bird

      Thanks for these topics Daniel! Let's discuss them at the meeting today (when we talk about ECL v2.1)

      Kind regards,
      Linda.

  2. Daniel Karlsson

    One other (half-cooked) thing: we've done history for concepts but not for any other components...

    Realizing the information on inactive concepts is different and more extensive from other components, {{ + HISTORY... }} is (just) sugar and maybe just maybe there might be reasons to sprinkle other components with this sweetness (or not).

    Examples: previously active refset members (and their fields), previously active descriptions (e.g. Refers to association refset), ...

    This is what got me thinking about what is and is not in a substrate.

    /Daniel

  3. Linda Bird

    Thanks Daniel, I've added your list of topics to next meeting's agenda.

    I'm not convinced that we need history supplements for other components - I don't think the use case is quite as strong as it is for concepts, and there is always a long-hand way of doing this using the Member functions we're adding in 2.0.

    Happy to discuss further though. (smile)

    Have a lovely weekend!
    Kind regards,
    Linda.

    1. Daniel Karlsson

      Hi Linda,

      I'm with you on the use case being not as strong, but would like a discussion so we can make a grounded decision about e.g. description filters on "Refers to" descriptions. At least it got the substrate discussion started.

      Cheers,
      Daniel