Page History

We already have language reference sets, which is a powerful tool to specify description use contexts such as (potentially) patient friendly/common language terms, speciality terms. Linguistic variants (abbreviations, singular/plural forms, some derivations) would still be considered we would (mostly) consider as acceptable synonyms and this . We are still in the process of finding out what constitutes over use of language reference sets.

"Search terms" we assume are generally not (true enough) synonyms and thus might require a new description type OR a new acceptability value and a slight(?) re-interpretation of what 900000000000013009 | Synonym (core metadata concept) | means.

Very similar approach to Sweden. Abbreviations are already supported and editorial guidance exists.

I could see a "patient friendly" synonym type being viable for when the same synonym will apply to a large number of specific concepts. And patient doesn't "need" to know that that much detail. "Patient-friendly" terms are inherently "lossy" - reduced detail. I'm not sure about the value of truncation? We create a lot of synonyms, specifically aimed at a consistent search experience.

As an aside, we've been informed by a clinician that we're in a (quote) "post mellitus" world, and "Diabetes" is an appropriate/preferrable synonym to "Diabetes mellitus". We're in looking into how we'll action this.