SNOMED CT Editorial Advisory Group

Page tree

k guidance

Inactivation ReasonAssociation TypeDescription

Erroneous

REPLACED_BY

The inactivation reason “Erroneous Component” explicitly states that the inactivated concept (A) has an FSN which contains an error that when corrected potentially changes the semantic meaning of the concept and that in the judgment of the author/editor the true original meaning is now represented by the “REPLACED_BY” concept (B).

Note: this inactivation reason should not be used to correct punctuation, word order changes, or minor spelling mistakes that do not change the meaning of the FSN - these changes can be made by inactivation and replacement of the FSN.

Guidance
  • Annotation
    Provide detail on the nature of the error and where appropriate a reference source

  • Additional notes

    • Where a decision is taken to inactivate and replace the FSN:
      • Establish whether the changes that needed to correct the FSN do make a potential change to the meaning of the concept. If they do not, inactivate and replace the FSN but not also the entire concept.
      • Where the error gives rise to potential ambiguity, use the inactivation reason of “Ambiguous Concept”.
    • In some instances, the decision to use ‘Erroneous’ or ‘Non-conformance to editorial policy’ is not straightforward. Take for example an issue relating to CT angiography: we now understand that, empirically, ALL CT angiograms carried out today necessarily use contrast - but this is not stated in either the FSNs or the modeling of the relevant concepts. It may, however, become possible in the future to carry out CT angiography both with and without contrast. Technically, therefore, universally adding “with contrast” into the FSNs now for clarity would indicate an error in the original concepts and it would change the meaning, from the current future-proof broad category in which use of contrast is universally implied only by the realities of modern-day medical technology, to a narrower category in which use of contrast is explicit. Therefore, do not hesitate to seek guidance if there is any doubt as to the most appropriate solution.

Examples

Incomplete or erroneous drug description

Inactivate concept:

Incorrect spelling of an organism

Although superficially some typographical errors can appear insignificant it is safer to inactivate and replace as the spelling differences between organism names can be small.

Inactivate concept:

Resolving sequences of Historical Associations

The intention is that functionality to resolve sequences of Historical Associations will normally be seamlessly integrated into the tooling so as to present to the user the appropriate updated historically association to be allocated.

Whenever an already stated REPLACED_BY target itself also becomes inactive   - whether at the same release or later, identifying the replacement for the original concept, should follow the combinatorial logic stated below.

Combinatorial Logic

(A) REPLACED_BY (B) and (B) SAME_AS (C) implies (A) REPLACED_BY (C)

(A) REPLACED_BY (B) and (B) REPLACED_BY (C) implies (A) REPLACED_BY (C)

(AIntEd) REPLACED_BY (BIntEd) and (BIntEd) MOVED_TO (CNRC) implies (AIntEd) MOVED_TO (CNRC)

(A) REPLACED_BY (B) and (B) POSSIBLY_EQUIVALENT_TO (C, D) implies (A) POSSIBLY_EQUIVALENT_TO (C, D)

(A) REPLACED_BY (B) and (B) WAS_A (C AND D) implies (A) WAS_A (C AND D)

Note: Once MOVED_TO the NRC, SNOMED International have no knowledge of what has happened to BIntEd

  • No labels

3 Comments

  1. Cathy Richardson

    This reason for inactivation is also used for descriptions and at present the definition present on Erroneous component is  'A component that contains a technical error'. 

    https://dailybuild.ihtsdotools.org/?perspective=full&conceptId1=900000000000485001&edition=MAIN&release=&languages=en

    Description Inactivation

    This guidance should comment on the use for both, though given the change of meaning of 'Erroneous', consideration is going to need to be given to descriptions using this reason for inactivation (or those which need inactivation where erroneous would have been used) prior to this being brought in. 


    Also given (as noted previously) this document is used by external users guidance such as 'Therefore, do not hesitate to consider internal discussion if there is any doubt as to the most appropriate solution' and tooling guidance (for those using a different platform) should be recognised as guidance given as required. 

  2. Jim Case

    For grammatical corrections of descriptions that do not require inactivation of the concept, we probably need a new inactivation reason for descriptions rather than just "erroneous".  I am ambivalent as to the name, it just needs to be distinguishable from the "erroneous" reason used for concepts.  

  3. Paul Amos

    The CIWG will need to review the current guidance for inactivation of descriptions once there is agreement on the concept inactivation work to ensure there is no conflict between concept and description inactivation processes.