RE: Archetype modelling pattern for Physical examination findings

Very important, I see as major advantage that gives predictability for archetypepaths which is necessary for wild carding AQL queries on unknown archetypes or groups of archetypes on different observations. In the field of observations this is part of a major step forwards. Researchers and softw

Re: Sports and Wellness

A better word for healthcare would be illness-care not ill-care (sorry for that) Bert On 01-08-18 08:28, Bert Verhees wrote: Is this subject clinical?  Not really (maybe another mailing-list would be in place, I explain it) A few weeks ago I discussed that OpenEhr should also focus on

Sports and Wellness

Is this subject clinical?  Not really (maybe another mailing-list would be in place, I explain it) A few weeks ago I discussed that OpenEhr should also focus on sports and wellness, because it is a growing market, it is very much related to health, and it has about the same software requireme

Re: The openEHR Asia summit succeeded.

Very good news, Shinji, let the good things rock and roll https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSQOeQakExU All the best from the Netherlands Bert On 30-07-18 20:12, Sam Heard wrote: Congratulations Shinji It is your commitment and continuity that has made such a difference. I hope to attend the

Re: Science of Machine Learning (was Machine Learning , some thoughts)

On 03-07-18 13:13, Anastasiou A. wrote: Initially, I thought that it would have been this one Opinions from yesterday may still be valid today. Inventions and business models follow up quickly. But the law is behind, as law should be: conservative, keeping an eye on human rights. _

Re: Science of Machine Learning (was Machine Learning , some thoughts)

On 03-07-18 12:21, Philippe Ameline wrote: Le 02/07/2018 à 11:31, Bert Verhees a écrit : On 30-06-18 17:16, Philippe Ameline wrote: (improperly labeling images or adding images of objects that are not plants) could probably make the whole app plainly crappy. Of course Philippe, but that

Re: Science of Machine Learning (was Machine Learning , some thoughts)

On 30-06-18 17:16, Philippe Ameline wrote: (improperly labeling images or adding images of objects that are not plants) could probably make the whole app plainly crappy. Of course Philippe, but that would be vandalism. Most sensible people don't do that when they stand behind the goal, and a l

Re: Re-purposing archetypes? [was Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts)

On 29-06-18 10:26, Thomas Beale wrote: I think  you have a good point about the documented uses of archetypes potentially being too narrow - it would be worth a global review to see if anything already there can be used for purposes different from that originally envisaged. I wonder if clinical

Re: wellness, lifestyle, sports archetypes ... or templates?

On 29-06-18 15:01, Thomas Beale wrote: Others may have better ideas, interested to hear from anyone who works with this kind of data. I sport a lot, every day, but only very amateur, never did a serious match, but I climbed several mountains on a bike, also the tough ones like the Tourmalet

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 29-06-18 07:38, Heather Leslie wrote: BTW Bert - here's a project that has some archetypes that might be useful for your diet app scenario:https://ckm.openehr.org/ckm/#showProject_1013.30.47. They were volunteered by some of our Portuguese colleagues and refined by CKM Editors. Thanks, I

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 29-06-18 07:13, Heather Leslie wrote: please try not to disseminate this kind of message. I understand the message, Heather, and every time when I express some criticism about how CKM is functioning, I never forget to tell how important it is and how good work it is. When you would had cop

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 29-06-18 01:11, GF wrote: Any one automobile or airplane or house is built using many, many standards. You are right Gerard, that was I was in my joke explicitly talking about interoperability standards. Bert ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

ds > > Heather > > -Original Message- > From: openEHR-clinical On > Behalf Of Thomas Beale > Sent: Friday, 29 June 2018 12:13 AM > To: openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org > Subject: Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts > > > > On 27/06/2018 16:57, Bert

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

GF said: We need standards on how to describe the health data and their epistemology/context, modeling patterns and rules on how to use coding systems and deal with ‘negation’, just to mention a few other things needed to define data inside EHR systems in such a way that data can exchanged. Dear G

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 28-06-18 10:33, Thomas Beale wrote: On 27/06/2018 13:00, Bert Verhees wrote: Dear Seref, I do not agree with this without having explored all the possibilities. I think it is important not to jump to conclusions and keep the discussion open. I have some ideas how to keep it interoperable

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 28-06-18 16:12, Thomas Beale wrote: On 27/06/2018 16:57, Bert Verhees wrote: I have sport-app which tells me the power I produce, and it tells me that in Watt/kg That is more important then BMI, because athletes can have a BMI above thirty (muscles are heavier then fat) and be very

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

> I don't know who May is but May is many ;-) Sorry, no time now, later I come back to your message ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

The discussion between Stefan and Karsten is about data related to an identifiable person, so gdpr is applicable. I hope I resume it right: Karsten says that it is illegal to collect data about a person if the purpose id not known. This is because Stefan says that it is allright to collect data wi

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 27-06-18 16:43, Philippe Ameline wrote: 1) you can find a bunch of practitioners that agree on working extra hours to comment a big bunch of images, or Did I tell you about the plant-app? I believe I did. 700.000 pictures are reviewed, often by volunteers. The app recognizes 16000 plants.

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 27-06-18 18:55, Anastasiou A. wrote: openEHR goes back to 1994 and its ideas are starting to become more widely known in the last few years. It is true, especially thanks to the good work of Marand but also others. As long as it is not part of medical school training, I do not think the

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 27-06-18 17:12, Anastasiou A. wrote: A few notes: You cannot specialise the Blood Pressure Archetype to express anything other than blood pressure as far as I am aware. I am not sure about that, but it is not important in how I think about it. Because the micro-archetypes contain valid pa

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 27-06-18 15:14, Anastasiou A. wrote: Not as “fact”, it is probably how I expressed it, this is my understanding so far and I would not mind it being corrected if wrong. >It is an archetype, it is written in ADL following the ADL-syntax, it is  processable by AOM, it consists of datatypes

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

Thanks for your reply, Anastasiou, I disagree with some opinions you express as fact. On 27-06-18 14:21, Anastasiou A. wrote: I think that this is the bit that causes the “friction” J “Archetype” is not a “value”. It is a type. It is an archetype, it is written in ADL following the ADL-synta

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

t keep it brief...) On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:31 PM, Bert Verhees <mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl>> wrote: One short addition, why this discussion, the original point: What about machine learning? Machine learning becomes possible when many daily health related data ar

Re: Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

, we cannot wait for CKM to follow day to day inventions, and some of them only used by minorities. The EHR must be able to create archetypes when needed. Op wo 27 jun. 2018 00:18 schreef Bert Verhees : > Thanks for supporting reactions. > > It is really typical in western medical scienc

Re: Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

Thanks for supporting reactions. It is really typical in western medical science that it is very problem oriented. All EHRs, even unconventional one, even the new thinking, it is very problem oriented. All data are gathered around a problem and in relevance of a problem. All datastructures are po

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 26-06-18 14:35, Stefan Sauermann wrote: Dear Bert, all! Sorry if this consumes excess bandwith, feel free to delete. The case you describe clearly provides a sound reason why "generic archetypes will remain necessary". I agree completely. This use case must always be satisfied. It does not

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

t generic archetypes? I wanted to keep it short. So best regards Bert Verhees Op ma 25 jun. 2018 18:31 schreef Stefan Sauermann < sauerm...@technikum-wien.at>: > Dear Bert! > Sorry, I did not want to be a nuisance. > I agree that AI makes sense in healthcare! I also agree that progress

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

side comment: I think that you are also speaking from different experiences. There is still some way to go in the transition to an electronic HER that would enable all this. Maybe things are progressing faster where you are (?) All the best Athanasios Anastasiou -Original Message- From:

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 25-06-18 14:56, Anastasiou A. wrote: Once you have this minimal dataset discovered, THEN you could compose the template or automatically create the archetypes. And yes, this CAN be done today, definitely. There is an understandable mindset which aspires to work with a standard-set of arch

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 25-06-18 14:47, Philippe Ameline wrote: Successfully using machine learning demands a prior culture of data quality and information awareness. Dear Philippe, I read your document later. I have to disagree with the word "prior". It makes it sound like, is has gone wrong long time ago, and t

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 25-06-18 13:52, Karsten Hilbert wrote: This approach much reminds me of what Philippe (sp?) described of his fils guides. Instances of "micro achetypes" would be generated on the fly while typing/speaking. The doctor mumbles to his screen while the patient tells it story, or the doctor does

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 25-06-18 12:44, Anastasiou A. wrote: The time scales for doing this would be enormous. We can probably work out a lower limit by looking at the lifecycle of archetypes in the current CKM. Thanks, for your answer, I agree with you and others, and already wrote that, that an EHR will not be

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 25-06-18 12:31, Thomas Beale wrote: On 25/06/2018 11:21, Stefan Sauermann wrote: 82% of correct recognition rate is a desaster in healthcare. 92% would be a disaster in healthcare ... 74% is even worse. My evidence based feeling is that we still will need to sort it out manually for

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 25-06-18 12:21, Stefan Sauermann wrote: Hope this helps, Not really Stefan, but thanks for trying. ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts

On 25-06-18 12:40, GF wrote: Providing health and care is part science and for a large part an art. Meaning that humans are needed. Artificial Intelligence is a nice scientific hyped topic and nothing more. That is not to say that AI might play a role and can be of use. It needs to be properly

Machine Learning , some thoughts

Today my wife showed me Plantnet. https://plantnet.org/en/ It recognizes over 6000 plants from showing a flower or a leaf to your phone. It has learned from machine-learning 700.000 pictures, and its knowledge every day grows stronger, because it keeps on learning. And not only the looks of a

Re: What to call this concept?

On 21-06-18 16:46, Philippe Ameline wrote: Le 15/06/2018 à 08:41, Bakke, Silje Ljosland a écrit : A typical question that would lead to this concept could be “What do you do?”. A man came upon a construction site where four people were working. He asked the first, “What are you doing?” and

Re: Clinical question on stackoverflow

hers was really much better. Thanks for that. Best regards Bert Verhees -- Forwarded message - From: Bert Verhees Date: di 19 jun. 2018 22:13 Subject: Clinical question on stackoverflow To: For openEHR clinical discussions Someone wants to answer it? Makes your account on

Clinical question on stackoverflow

Someone wants to answer it? Makes your account on stackoverflow shine https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50918982/medication-order-vs-prescription-in-openehr ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/m

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

On 12-03-18 08:51, GF wrote: Nodes in an archetype coded in LOINC and data coded in SNOMED. LOINC defines a way to asks clinical questions which coded answers may be represented by SNOMED-CT. LOINC has the worldwide integration and SNOMED-CT has the  detailed semantics, and is the leading glo

Re: Archetype pattern

e created in the wild. There must be a better solution for this. Bert Original message From: Bert Verhees Date: 16/2/18 5:17 am (GMT+10:00) To: openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: Archetype pattern On 15-02-18 17:51, Thomas Beale wrote: Indeed, patterns a

Re: Archetype pattern

made explicit, and therefore computable in the models. Docs know what they are looking at, most of the time, but not that much is computable, because not much is explicit. We have a long way to go (by 'we' I mean everybody; SNOMED for example hardly touches any of these questions). But

Re: Modeling generic concepts, considerations for querying

I agree with this one. Option 1 would create a kind of forest of dependencies, many many archetypes in complex hierarchic systems, like SNOMED in the endnodes. I don't think anyone would want this. Option 2 is the option represents the power of OpenEHR. By the way, SNOMED also supports higher h

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

When you add the descriptions in SNOMED, language of the SNOMED-database would be important, version is already there, I would say "version" instead of min_version, it makes it more generic usable. Bert On 17-07-17 16:19, Thomas Beale wrote: Recently we discussed terminology bindings. We prob

Re: Major update to openEHR Task Planning (workflow) draft specification

Good worked out, good thought through, a welcome addition to the RM. Thanks for writing and the sponsors, thanks for funding. Bert On 01-06-17 06:40, Thomas Beale wrote: I have published a major update to the Task Planning draft specification

Re: SNOMED in CKM

When we have a DvCodedText and we want to express a List Of Values with term-bindings, then we need SNOMED post-coordination in term-bindings. Example: Excision of lymph node: Procedure context (attribute) 58347006:408730004=410534003 <-- Not indicated 58347006:408730004=262008008 <-- Not perfo

Re: SNOMED in CKM

That is true, did not think about that. Regards 2017-04-25 8:27 GMT+02:00 Bert Verhees <mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl>>: Hi Ian, not to be troublesome, but wouldn't it be better, for interoperability, to use the name IHTSDO uses. I think Pablo has a point here.

Re: SNOMED in CKM

On 25-04-17 09:32, Ian McNicoll wrote: Hi Bert, SNOMED CT Licensing re openEHR is under active discussion with SNOMED. The principle will be that archetypes or templates containing SNOMED CT codes can be freely used within systems, unless the system actually uses SNOMED CT codes in the patien

Re: SNOMED in CKM

ink using archetypes that reference snomed is a problem. The thing is when you want to support snomed in your system, having or not archetypes doesn't makes the difference IMO. On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Bert Verhees <mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl>> wrote: But I think tha

Re: SNOMED in CKM

cal terminology descriptor that we use inside terminology_id is 'SNOMED-CT' Ian On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 at 08:03, Bert Verhees <mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl>> wrote: I thought so too, I even asked someone at ihtsdo but when you read the license coming with the SNOMED-CT browser,

Re: SNOMED in CKM

Pazos : > In terms of license, I don't think using archetypes that reference snomed > is a problem. The thing is when you want to support snomed in your system, > having or not archetypes doesn't makes the difference IMO. > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Bert Verhees

Re: SNOMED in CKM

But I think that it is not allowed to use SNOMED-CT in bindings when you're not explicitly permitted to do so. Bert Op di 25 apr. 2017 06:34 schreef Bert Verhees : > I agree completely with you, Pablo > > Best regards > Bert > > Op di 25 apr. 2017 06:24 schreef Pab

Re: SNOMED in CKM

rchetype node, the purpose is to add definition to the > archetype, not to use the code as part of the record. That can be done, but > is not the purpose of having term bindings on the archetype. That is > explained on the specs somewhere, is not my idea :) > > > Cheers, > P

Re: SNOMED in CKM

enance on the same specific part. The DRY rule is very well-known and for good reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself An important part of the power of OpenEHR is in the flexibility which offers solutions for exceptional situations. Best regards Bert Verhees Regards, P

Re: SNOMED in CKM

Op 12-4-2017 om 12:01 schreef Ian McNicoll: Having said that, my understanding is that SNOMED are very willing to be generous in terms of vendor/org level licensing in such a situation. I know that they have a license for organizations in a country which is a non-member. And for one organizatio

Re: SNOMED in CKM

12 April 2017 at 09:56, Bert Verhees <mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl>> wrote: Hi, I needed to clean up archetypes from SNOMED bindings because of license-reasons, I "grepped" the local directory from CKM. To my surprise I found there SNOMED bindings in over 50 archet

Re: SNOMED in CKM

Op 12-4-2017 om 10:56 schreef Bert Verhees: Hi, I needed to clean up archetypes from SNOMED bindings because of license-reasons, I "grepped" the local directory from CKM. To my surprise I found there SNOMED bindings in over 50 archetypes. I must mitigate that, a part of the 50 are

SNOMED in CKM

Hi, I needed to clean up archetypes from SNOMED bindings because of license-reasons, I "grepped" the local directory from CKM. To my surprise I found there SNOMED bindings in over 50 archetypes. This can, I think, be a problem for countries which have no SNOMED license. Or is the opinion that SN

Re: BMI archetype

Evaluations can be wrong, and need > to be revisited. The EHR needs to be able to show the observational data > distinct from subsequent interpretations so that an investigation for a > difficult case can proceed efficiently. > > - thomas > > On 11/04/2017 02:58, Bert Verhees w

Re: BMI archetype

:gf...@luna.nl> Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands On 11 Apr 2017, at 10:36, Bert Verhees <mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl>> wrote: Read for yourself Gerard: http://www.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/docs/ehr/ehr.html On 11-04-17 10:23, GF wrote: What are the definitions? G

Re: BMI archetype

distinguish. Maybe the reference-model is in need of another term, that can be partly observation and partly evaluation. And when we have that term, it is questionable if that term shouldn't have been there at the first place. Bert On 11-04-17 09:54, Bert Verhees wrote: It is clear

Re: BMI archetype

Read for yourself Gerard: http://www.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/docs/ehr/ehr.html On 11-04-17 10:23, GF wrote: What are the definitions? Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl <mailto:gf...@luna.nl> Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands On 11 Apr 2017, at 09:54

Re: BMI archetype

y be a date of onset but there may not be. Personality disorder is an example of the latter. Dates in evaluation archetypes tend to be specific to that concept. Cheers, Sam Sent fromMail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>for Windows 10 *From:*Bert Verhees <mailto:bert.ve

Re: BMI archetype

considerations shared on this mailinglist. Best regards Bert Verhees On 10-04-17 09:46, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote: I think this is a case of putting too much weight into the names of the archetype classes. Basically: ·OBSERVATIONs are used when you need a point in time event (or series

Re: BMI archetype

Op 10-4-2017 om 8:52 schreef GF: I would say one needs both: Evaluation: when calculating by the author the BMI-number using existing weight/height data Observation: when reading/copying by the author aa a BMI-result from a source Also a good argument ;-) A good solution would then be, put i

Re: BMI archetype

Op 10-4-2017 om 8:37 schreef Pablo Pazos: I think evaluation requires the interpretation from a professional. On a calculation there is no interpretation, the interpretation comes from the result of the calculation, like saying the patient is obese. Good argument, I keep that in mind Bert __

BMI archetype

Hi, Shouldn't the BMI archetype on CKM be of type Evaluation? One does not observe BMI, it is a calculation. openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.body_mass_index.v1 Thanks for your comments. Bert ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.or

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

Op 22-3-2017 om 12:31 schreef Thomas Beale: Just catching up on this conversation - I am unclear on why the original solution Bert proposed here isn't correct. What this says is: * for the ac0001 term constraint in the model, allow the term to be from one of ETDA or ICD10 I think, t

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

ng to lab-tests, and that is really sad. I don't think that my questions are very extraordinary. There are workarounds (do it in programming-code), but I see no elegant solution inside the current RM. It adds up, and I have to explain it to the customer. Best regards Be

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

ra card) to add a value to the mappings code phrase. Is this > a solution to your issue? > > > > Heath > > > > *From:* openEHR-clinical [ > mailto:openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Bert Verhees > *Sent:* Thursday, 16 March 2017 8:31 AM &g

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

Thanks Peter, I must have missed it. blush blush (missing my regular workstation/email client) It is indeed the solution. Sorry for that Best regards Bert On 17-03-17 14:42, Peter Gummer wrote: On 17 Mar 2017, at 22:39, Bert Verhees wrote: The several countries have independent

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

e that is possible, I did still not look at that, if it is not possible we need the GUI to handle this, which is, I think, the worst case solution). Thanks, Bert On 16-03-17 12:06, Karsten Hilbert wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:31:27PM +0000, Bert Verhees wrote: The problem with to Dv_coded

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

t; > Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org > Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. > Director, HANDIHealth CIC > Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL > > On 15 March 2017 at 21:31, Bert Verhees wrote: > > We are considering that Diego, the fact is th

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

"ETDA"] = < > items = < > ["ac0001"] = > > > > > ["ICD10"] = < > items = < > ["ac0001"] = > > > > > > > > My second question, if you say this

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

one of the two terminologies specified. > > The constraint can define multiple potential terminologies but only one > defining_code is allowed in the instance data. > > Ian > On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 at 10:29, Bert Verhees wrote: > > Dear readers, > > I have a problem and

Problem with constraint_binding

minology constraints to one data-item, which construct do you advise to make two terminology constraints_bindings available to one DV_CODED_TEXT (or maybe another datavalue-type)? Thanks for any help. Best regards Bert Verhees ___ openEHR-clinical

Re: Generic vs specific archetype modeling

> It is already there... > > http://openehr.org/ckm/#showProject_1013.30.26 > > We are (ably led by Silje and team + Norwegian lab / systems vendors) > finalising the models but there are unlikely to be any major late-breaking > changes. > > Ian > > Dr Ian McNicoll &

Re: Generic vs specific archetype modeling

ossible to use clones in templates and still having a kind of terminology binding, although, not at the usual place, so a bit hidden. It also allows distinguishing cloned archetypes in templates by its function. It solves quite some trouble we have right now. Thanks, you saved my day Best

Re: Generic vs specific archetype modeling

odels but there are unlikely to be any major late-breaking > changes. > > Ian > > Dr Ian McNicoll > mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 > office +44 (0)1536 414994 > skype: ianmcnicoll > email: i...@freshehr.com > twitter: @ianmcnicoll > > > Co-Chair, openEHR Foundati

Re: Generic vs specific archetype modeling

(and label it appropriate in the template) and have no way to distinguish (on ADL-path) what kind of a lab-test an data-set describes? ------- Best regards Bert Verhees ___

Re: Generic vs specific archetype modeling

Op 1-3-2017 om 11:24 schreef Bert Verhees: --- Do you advise me to make many specializations from one generic archetype (like labtest) in order to make the ADL-paths specific? Do you foresee for this reason, OpenEhr archetype-library becoming

Re: Generic vs specific archetype modeling

ming a kind of LOINC database? Or do you advise me to stick to the generic lab-test archetype (and label it appropriate in the template) and have no way to distinguish (on ADL-path) what kind of a lab-test an data-set describes? --- Best

Re: Generic vs specific archetype modeling

Op 1-3-2017 om 10:59 schreef Thomas Beale: So, normally, you want to specialise and you will get appropriate search results, whether you use the parent or child archetype archetype paths as the search key. Does that answer the question? Not not really, and I am not looking for a defence, I am

Re: Generic vs specific archetype modeling

:42, Bert Verhees wrote: Dear all, I have a question and I wonder which choice other people would make in such a situation. A simple example to explain the situation: Imagine I want to record a few labtests in a template. There are a few choices: 1) Use a generic lab-test archetype, and clone

Generic vs specific archetype modeling

Dear all, I have a question and I wonder which choice other people would make in such a situation. A simple example to explain the situation: Imagine I want to record a few labtests in a template. There are a few choices: 1) Use a generic lab-test archetype, and clone it inside a template a

Re: Two LOINC codes for one lab-item

Op 17-2-2017 om 12:56 schreef Daniel Karlsson: would subsume both. Again a good reason to allow post-coordinated expressions in term-binding in archetypes. Thanks Bert Verhees ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical

Re: Two LOINC codes for one lab-item

guarantees that it will be used. The fact that this code is included in HEDIS panels and Value Sets suggest it might have been introduced into LOINC for downstream quality reporting. Thanks, Eric, I didn't find that one. I must have given up too quickly Bert Ve

Re: Two LOINC codes for one lab-item

Very well thought out guidelines in the second part. Will be helpful in the discussion Thanks Bert Op do 16 feb. 2017 om 10:07 schreef Ian McNicoll : > This was helpful but still implies that some sort of terminology service > is required > > > https://confluence.ihtsdotools.org/download/attachm

Re: Two LOINC codes for one lab-item

Thanks for the confirmation, Thomas. Bert Op wo 15 feb. 2017 om 16:22 schreef Thomas Beale : > > This is in my view also the correct solution and explanation. The only > thing to add is that these bindings only make sense within archetypes > specific to particular lab results, e.g. urinalysis or

Re: Two LOINC codes for one lab-item

Thanks David, I will suggest this to my employer. Best regards Bert Verhees Op wo 15 feb. 2017 om 14:58 schreef David Moner : > Bert, I think you have a misconception there. > > In your example there are not codes for different units. There are codes > for different comp

Re: Two LOINC codes for one lab-item

icoll > email: i...@freshehr.com > twitter: @ianmcnicoll > > > Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org > Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. > Director, HANDIHealth CIC > Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL > > On 15 February 2017 at 12:56, Bert

Re: Two LOINC codes for one lab-item

ts are > coded using UCUM standard, so they are already semantically > queryable/interpretable. > > 2017-02-15 13:25 GMT+01:00 Bert Verhees : > > That is indeed a way to do it. But I believe the feeling here is to not do > it that way, and add no LOINC-term-binding to dv_quantity

Re: Two LOINC codes for one lab-item

gt; > > Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org > Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. > Director, HANDIHealth CIC > Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL > > On 15 February 2017 at 12:06, Bert Verhees wrote: > > Ian, > > The problem is that

Re: Two LOINC codes for one lab-item

; > > Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org > Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. > Director, HANDIHealth CIC > Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL > > On 15 February 2017 at 11:42, Bert Verhees wrote: > > Thanks Ian for the quick response. >

Re: Two LOINC codes for one lab-item

nehr.org/2014-November/003393.html ) So, imho, the possibility to add LOINC-coding (or coding in general) to different unit-kinds in the dv_quantity-class to tell us what we are looking at, would be a good feature to support interoperability. Bert Verhees Op wo 15 feb. 2017 om 11:53 schreef

Two LOINC codes for one lab-item

mg/dL 14682-9 Creatinine [Moles/volume] in Serum or Plasma Creatinine Qn umol/L Would it be good if it was possible to add code per unit-kind in dv_quantity? Or are there other suggestions Thanks Bert Verhees ___ openEHR-clinical mailing

Re: The use of CKM

27; in the same sense as the Gang-of-for software patterns. It might be possible one day to machine discover which pattern a given archetype conforms to and to do something with that knowledge at runtime, but we are not there yet. - thomas On 27/01/2017 23:51, Bert Verhees wrote: Hi Thomas

Re: The use of CKM

discussion would become possible. Another advantage would be that newcomers would have some directions. So, that is why i hsve this question: are there some paradigms described which shape new archetypes for CKM? Thanks Bert Op vr 27 jan. 2017 17:03 schreef Bert Verhees : > Op 27-1-2017 om 16

Re: The use of CKM

there description a formal strategy of desirable structures? Best regards, Bert - thomas On 24/01/2017 11:33, Bert Verhees wrote: Hi I have a remark about the use of some archetypes in CKM. I think that it would be nice to have archetypes of some specific content, for example, medication

  1   2   3   >