I've been getting these emails and this is great news that you've found our ontology easy to leverage. Let me know if I can be of any help.
FYI, I'd be happy to integrate/accept your improvements into our ontology release if they align. What are the improvements? LOINC mappings? Also fyi, our timeline for CDMv3 is also soon - 10/1 (except for some small sections like the trial table). The Google Drive that we've shared with collaborators already has CDMv3 ontologies for everything except PRO, Death, Trial, and Harvest. (I imagine Dan and co have seen this.) We are using modifiers to distinguish Diagnosis from Condition and Prescribed from Dispensed, so these are not separate trees. Thanks! Jeffrey Klann, PhD Instructor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School Assistant in Computer Science, Massachusetts General Hospital PhD in Research, Partners Healthcare Research Computing ofc: 617-643-5879 email: jkl...@partners.org > -----Original Message----- > From: GPC Informatics [mailto:d...@madmode.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 1:00 PM > To: dconno...@kumc.edu; nate.apa...@cerner.com; > verhagen.lau...@mcrf.mfldclin.edu > Cc: gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu; Klann, Jeffrey G. > Subject: Re: [gpc-informatics] #191: represent PCORI CDM 2.x > terminology as i2b2 metadata > > #191: represent PCORI CDM 2.x terminology as i2b2 metadata > -----------------------+------------------------ > Reporter: dconnolly | Owner: dconnolly > Type: problem | Status: new > Priority: medium | Milestone: > Component: data-stds | Resolution: > Keywords: | Blocked By: 109 > Blocking: 317 | > -----------------------+------------------------ > > Comment (by nateapathy): > > Our implementation effort estimation ended up being much more than the > actual work effort, which was very reassuring. The SCILHS ontology, due > to its limited granularity, is pretty straightforward to implement, > and follows best practices for i2b2 design, which makes it easier to > implement. In terms of mapping our hierarchies and terms to the SCILHS > ontology hierarchies and terms, that effort which we thought would be > monumental, was actually not nearly as cumbersome as we thought, > largely because we were already fairly well aligned since > (specifically for > demographics) Cerner i2b2 uses the standard i2b2 demographic ontology, > and the SCILHS ontology sticks fairly closely to that design. Granted, > the ease of that transition was due in large part to our local > standard following the i2b2 standard pretty tightly, so the degree to > which on a site has deviated from the i2b2 standard ontologies will be > a good proxy for work effort to align with SCILHS. > > -- > Ticket URL: > <http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/191#comment:10> > gpc-informatics <http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/> > Greater Plains Network - Informatics The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly dispose of the e-mail. _______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list Gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
