Time:
0900 - 1030 PST
1700 - 1830 UTC
Zoom Meeting Details
Attendees
Chair:
AG Members:
Invitees:
Observers
Apologies:
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 | This meeting is being recorded to ensure that important discussion points are not missed in the minutes. The recording will be available to the SNOMED International community. Joining the meeting by accepting the Zoom prompt declares that you have no objection to your comments being recorded |
| |
| 2 | Conflicts of interest and agenda review | |||
| Adverse reaction usage | All disorder concepts with a CAUSED BY relationship value from the Pharmaceutical/biological product hierarchy be modeled as a subtype of Adverse reaction. Add definitions from the GC ticket. | |||
| Inactivation of 370115009 |Special concept (special concept)| | Expansion of the prior briefing note to inactivate the Navigational concept hierarchy to include its parent 370115009 |Special concept (special concept)|, as it only has one subtype. | |||
| Creation of new top level hierarchy for Generic products | Issue with positioning non-pharmaceutical products (e.g. nicotine, environmental products) as there is not generic Product top level hierarchy. The proposal is to create this new top-level concept, and make the current 373873005 |Pharmaceutical / biologic product (product)| a subtype. This would also allow the movement of many of the current substance concepts under 312412007 |Substance categorized functionally (substance)|, most of which are not pharmaceutical, to be reclassified as products. | |||
| 3 | Modeling of "No known X" | Inconsistent representation of "No known...(situation)" with proposed remodeling. See attached document. Different resolution depending on whether the Situation is a "Finding with explicit context" (allowed range = << 410514004 |Finding context value (qualifier value)|) or a "Procedure with explicit context" (allowed range - << 288532009 |Context values for actions (qualifier value)|)? Proposed definition for "No known" after consultation with EAG members. Differs from "unknown" in that it implies a reasonable effort to acquire the information, or a lack of evidence to support the issue at hand as opposed to a general lack of information for any reason. Agreed in the last meeting in Atlanta that it should be a sibling of "Unknown". Latest proposed Definition: Subsequent to a reasonable attempt to acquire information, there is no evidence or information that proves the presence of a particular finding, therefore assuming its absence without objective proof. Discussion: The is an issue with the application of "No known". There are many instances where there is no knowledge, but there is a lack of objective knowledge. The question is how much investigation needs to be done to make the statement. A detailed discussion document on the use of different finding contexts has been provided by Monique van Berkum and is attached to the minutes. While there may be a clear distinction between "No known" and "Unknown", it is difficult to determine to what concepts these should be applied. There is a flavor of bias towards the condition not being there with "no known", whereas "unknown" has no bias in either direction. How much uncertainty do we want to include in pre-coordinated content? Suggestion that we should not add new content in this area until we can more precisely represent the underlying meaning of these terms. Family history is one example where it is never possible to know definitively that a condition has not been in family members. Decision: Topic table for now. EAG members encouraged to review Monique's document and add comments in preparation for a later meeting. Review the attached document | ||
| 4 | MRCM change and revision of Physical object hierarchy |
Discussion: Requirements were developed with lab specialists to meet their needs. There needs to be some more specific use cases to make the effort worth it other than just making the hierarchy more manageable. Additives are substances that would be incorporated into the specimen, whereas the separator attribute represents something that is not incorporated into the specimen. Also suggested that separators should not also be physical objects, but should be substances. What is the impact of adding these to other hierarchies that might use these needs to be considered. There is some use for the HAS INTENDED SPECIMEN even knowing it is not "always and necessarily true". How should "spray-dried coating" be modeled in this scenario? Is it an additive or just a substance coating on the container? How manufacturers represent the difference between coatings and additives needs to be considered. Need definitions for each of the attributes that make it clear to modelers what substances are allowed. Will the level of effort needed to make these SD be worth the results. Decision: Referred back to Daniel Karlsson and Feikje Hielkema-Raadsveld for revision based on comments from the EAG | ||
| 7 | Replacement of "Surgical approach" with "Procedure approach | In May 2023 the EAG discussed the potential for eliminating the distinction of "Surgical procedure" due to the challenges in developing an internationally acceptable definition for what constitutes a surgical procedure. An ancillary topic that was not discussed in detail was the generalization of the "Surgical approach" attribute and replacement with the unapproved attribute "Procedure approach". A briefing note describing the issues is attached. Discussion held in October was not recorded. Revisiting this. Discussion: Decision: EAG members aske to review and add comments based on the briefing note. | ||
| 8 | AOB | EAG | Meeting in December cancelled as it is on Christmas Day | |
| Next meeting | EAG | Meetings will continue on the fourth Monday of the month and may be cancelled if necessary. | ||