...

JCA said the discussion was reminiscent of panels in the laboratory space. For example, if you have a number of things you want run on the same patient, you create a panel of things that needed to be done and they are performed in separate procedures in the lab. He agreed with GRE what you did not want to open the door without some guidelines to large and complex sets of combined orders in the diagnostic imaging space, but what was the reasonable line to draw in the sand.

PAM said there were similarities of this discussion to the and/or topic.

JCA said multiple procedures was probably easier than multiple body sites in terms of the relationship, but coming up with guidelines would be a larger task. He asked AG members to think about it and add their comments to the discussion page so that it could be discussed later. 

JCA then said that he had made an executive decision that IHTSDO would not be accepting these.

Requirement for description FSN in MRCM

JCA said that a validation error on the report showed up when there was no matching description on the FSN. Some of the current FSN naming conventions resulted in non-user friendly terms. There was a question of whether it was useful to have another description. On the last call, he said, he had asked BGO to take it back to the ECE group to discuss if a matching FSN was needed to represent the term, and if not, what would the structure of the FSN look like, especially in co-occurrent and due to.

BGO said the group discussed it and everyone seemed to agree that the co-occurrent pattern for a preferred term of XNY be used and for co-occurrent due to XNY due to be used.

GRE spoke about automation of the creation of the description without the semantic tag and how there had been a backlog of about 800 to 1200 descriptions showing up in each release. He went on to say that the technical solution was quite straight forward.

JCA said that it was a matter of whether the matching description was actually needed. There seemed to be no overhead in having them, other than relatively verbose descriptions that matched an FSN that was just another description, but was it necessary to have an error or just a warning? The reverse side of that, he said, was if a submission were to come in with a concept description that really required disambiguation in the term, what would be the way to find the best term without using the ambiguous terms?

GRE noted that it depended on English preferences, and although he had preferences about the Spanish edition, he was neutral about English. JCA said whichever solution they chose, someone would not be pleased, but that was often the case in editorial decisions.

JCA asked if the AG had a recommendation to the internal team on the matter. BGO said that as a default he would continue having a preferred term that matched the FSN without the semantic tag to enable the creation of a more user-friendly term as required. GRE noted that the idea would be that the FSN should be complete and unambiguous, and the preferred term would be just that - preferred. PAM clarified that it sounded like GRE was saying that one of the synonyms should be the FSN without the semantic tag. GRE agreed. PAM said he could agree with that too. JCA said that the matching description would not required that it be the preferred term, just that it be matching.

BGO asked about the co-occurent recommendation - did JCA agree with that? JCA said yes, and he would run it by the Editorial Panel the following week and bring any questions back to BGO.

Extending the range of pathological process

JCA said he had been working on the topic for some years. He had found some semi-