Descriptions:
Term | description type | Language/acceptability | Language/acceptability | Case significance |
---|---|---|---|---|
[course] [periods of life][morphology] of [body structure] due to [clinical finding/disease] (disorder) | FSN | us:P | gb:P | ci |
[course] [periods of life][morphology] of [body structure] due to [clinical finding/disease] | SYN | us:P | gb:P | ci |
Concept model:
Attribute cardinality | Attribute | Value | role group number | Role group cardinality |
---|---|---|---|---|
1..1 | 0 | N/A | ||
0..1 | 1 | 0..1 | ||
1.1 | 2 | 1..1 | ||
1..1 | 3 | 1..* @rolegroup | ||
0..1 | 3 | |||
0..1 | 3 | |||
0..1 | 3 |
Definition status:
Applies to
<< 128477000 |Abscess (disorder)| : 42752001 |Due to (attribute)| = *
Template Language
Rules for generating descriptions:
- Apply General rules for generating descriptions for templates
- Appy Enhancements for the Template Language;
Jira ticket:
- QI-210Getting issue details... STATUS
- INFRA-3262Getting issue details... STATUS
8 Comments
Bruce Goldberg
Peter G. Williams , please update template language
Peter G. Williams
There we go Bruce Goldberg. Another case where I think Disease is redundant in the presence of Clinical Finding.
There are 24 misaligned concepts for this template (only 1 matching) but this is always because some other not-abcess morphology is present. See https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13IqqF9EvyYkSiwLgIplqtvbMgaIkRBF2U4ZGnDEE3aw/edit#gid=0
Bruce Goldberg
Hi Peter G. Williams. I went ahead and corrected this as well as the others with a redundant disease assertion.
Thanks,
Bruce
Jim Case
What is the use case for CLINICAL COURSE and OCCURRENCE here?
Bruce Goldberg
Jim, I copied this from an existing and approved template, where I just added a due to relationship. I think an optional due to relationship could just be added to the existing template and this one deleted. The existing template which I did not work on, had CLINICAL COURSE and OCCURRENCE relationships. There are many existing acute and chronic abscess concepts so clinical course is appropriate. I don't see a need for the OCCURRENCE attribute.
Abscess of [body structure] - Ready for implementation
Cathy Richardson
Jim Case Is this template okay to go?
Bruce Goldberg FYI
Jim Case
Cathy Richardson ,
As Bruce mentioned, I think that by just adding an optional DUE TO relationship the the Abscess of [body structure] template, we can accomplish the same thing. I did a quick check and we only have one abscess concept that had an occurrence relationship, 276679003 |Neonatal breast abscess (disorder)|, so we can make that one term and exception in the misaligned concept report or add an optional OCCURRENCE attribute (I would go for the former). So I would opt for making the change to the existing template and deleting this one.
Bruce Goldberg
Cathy, Sorry, I thought we were talking about the original template. There are several combined disorder concepts that I am coming across of the type X due to Y where X is defined by an existing template and for which adding an optional due to (or temporal) relationship would suffice. I am trying to add a comment to the existing template and I should be removing those templates I have created for X due to/after Y where a template for X exists.
Bruce