Date
2020-09-02
Time:
1600 - 1800 UTC
0900 - 1100 PDT
Zoom Meeting Details
Topic: SNOMED Editorial Advisory Group Conference Call
Time: Sep 2, 2020 09:00 AM Pacific Time (US and Canada)
Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android:
https://snomed.zoom.us/j/95255747097?pwd=Tys5VHNqVTBCWFFuODVnR09sS2JTUT09
Password: 614983
Attendees
Chair:
AG Members
Invitees:
Observers:
Apologies:
Meeting Files:
Meeting minutes:
The call recording is located here.
Objectives
- Obtain consensus on agenda items
Discussion items
| Item | Description | Owner | Notes | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Call to order and role call | Start recording! |
| |
| 2 | Conflicts of interest and agenda review | No conflicts noted | ||
| 3 | Morphology (disorder) concepts | Jim Case | SNOMED CT currently has a large number of disorder concepts that solely represent morphologies. E.g. 416462003 |Wound (disorder)|; 416439000 |Lipogranuloma (disorder)|). While all of these are SD by simply using DIsease + morphology, other than as grouping concepts, are these valuable clinical terms. With the advent of ECL it is a simple query to identify all concepts that fit into these morphologies. What should be the editorial guidance for the creation/maintenance of these terms? Additionally, there are of over 5400 "grouper" terms in SNOMED CT. Many of these are abstract and are useful for navigation, but should not be used in clinical recording. There has been some interest in providing these as an exclusion refset in order to prevent them from being selectable for clinical use. However, some of the terms do have limited clinical usefulness (i.e patient reported clinical findings). It has been suggested that a task for the EAG would be to identify: 1) which terms in the list have clinical usefulness, 2) which terms provide meaningful navigational usefulness and 3) which terms should be inactivated. File link: SNOMED CT Grouper sheet Discussion: | |
| ECE Topics | Bruce Goldberg | Combined disorder model revisited DUE TO relationships may hide other relevant relationships from the classifier that would be better explicitly stated in an axiom | ||
| Next meeting | EAG | Discussion: |