William E Hammond wrote:
Just yesterday I ran into this construct in looking at a dosing algorithm
for pediatrics. Without the detail, the first time-related logic specified
for the period of less than 7 days (7 days. The next logic line specified
= 7 days. Without the =, the logic
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 10:03:12AM +0100, Thomas Beale wrote:
Not sure of the need for = or =. It's either beyond the value reading
capability of the device or an actual value is record (within some accuracy
tolerance).
yes, this has already been mentioned - Vince has never seen it in the
Je suis absente du bureau jusqu'au jeudi 26 avril 2006.
Sandrine Villaeys
Dear all,
The CEN EN13606 EHRcom standard is using an attribute to indicate
that 'something is going on' and that precautions must be taken.
Resulting most often in the need for human intervention.
Is such an attribute a possible intermediate solution for the problem
here?
Gerard
--
:
Sent by:Subject: Re: Pathology
numeric values not supported in DV_Quantity
owner-openehr-technical
Heath Frankel wrote:
Tom,
Not sure of the need for = or =. It's either beyond the value reading
capability of the device or an actual value is record (within some accuracy
tolerance).
Heath
yes, this has already been mentioned - Vince has never seen it in the
millions of results his
: Pathology
numeric values not supported in DV_Quantity
owner-openehr-technical@
openehr.org
Thomas Beale wrote:
Colin Sutton wrote:
The 'coding' is surely 'Accuracy' ('Measurement' has 'Accuracy') where
this can be None|~|Unknown|Percentage(value)!SD(Distribution type,value)
which would cover any measurement (e.g.height,heart rate), not just
pathology lab values
this seems
Folks,
I will repeat myself.
You are talking about a data type.
This DV_Quantity is a number.
The question is how do we embellish this data type and the number it
presents with extra codes/numbers to indicate: types of certainty/
uncertainty, and statistical distributions.
The only real
I agree. A workshop, moment of reflexion, is needed.
We must understand better the real facts, the use cases, the
requirements, before we come to wrong constructs in the wrong models
or the correct ones.
Next we need to use the same definitions for:
Data Type,
Composit Data Type,
Archetype.
Colin Sutton wrote:
The 'coding' is surely 'Accuracy' ('Measurement' has 'Accuracy') where this
can be None|~|Unknown|Percentage(value)!SD(Distribution type,value)
which would cover any measurement (e.g.height,heart rate), not just pathology
lab values
this seems pretty close to a
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060322/62f4b2c9/attachment.html
Sam Heard wrote:
It is a flag that says the value is very uncertain - accuracy is not
known - how do we say this - or a quality factor makes the reading
very uncertain. I just want to be able to see how we express when
accuracy is poor but not quantifiable.
Sam
doesn't it mean that the
Thomas,
In a data type like DV - in my mind- only flags can be raised that
indicate the technicalities of that number. And that means round off
error with which it is reported.
All other flags are at the archetype level.
Null-Flavors belong there. It is all at the semantic level, the
I agree with this - that's it good enough now.
I think this thread is starting to talk about things which aren't
properly part of the data type, they are conceptual things about
the result values, and should be modelled explicitly in the
archetypes.
Grahame
Thomas Beale wrote:
Sam would
hi Thomas
is it your feeling that we need to have a better model of accuracy, i.e.
more like the confidence interval idea? Or are we ok with what we have?
well. a measured quantity is a group of data, with some or all of the following
things known:
- what was measured
- how it was measured
Thomas Beale wrote:
Grahame Grieve wrote:
I agree with this - that's it good enough now.
I think this thread is starting to talk about things which aren't
properly part of the data type, they are conceptual things about
the result values, and should be modelled explicitly in the archetypes.
Sam Heard wrote:
Dear Tom and all
I must say that quantifying accuracy and uncertainty is very difficult
- and I do like the inclusion of ~ in the set of flags to mean
approximately - when there is no idea of accuracy from a mathematical
point of view. I think we may lose something if we
Heath Frankel wrote:
Tom,
Does leaving the current DV_QUANTITY the way it is include the ability to
record 5 mmol/L for example?
yes - sorry - that was ambiguous - we have to make that addition (using
a coded attribute).
- t
The 'coding' is surely 'Accuracy' ('Measurement' has 'Accuracy') where this can
be None|~|Unknown|Percentage(value)!SD(Distribution type,value)
which would cover any measurement (e.g.height,heart rate), not just pathology
lab values
Regards,
Colin Sutton
Sam would be better able to give an idea of all the health professionals
who have been consulted, but certainly in Australia, Vince McCauley (a
pathologist) has been extremely helpful on pathology result detail.
Also, people like Heath Frankel and Grahame Grieve who have worked with
HL7v2
Grahame Grieve wrote:
I agree with this - that's it good enough now.
I think this thread is starting to talk about things which aren't
properly part of the data type, they are conceptual things about
the result values, and should be modelled explicitly in the archetypes.
Grahame,
is it your
Gerard Freriks wrote:
Hi,
A few words from a non-techie.
Quantity means that what is the resulting figure expressing a quantity.
Hb: 8.5 mmol/L
A property of the Hb measurement can be an uncertainty.
This is not an uncertainty of the figure 8.5, but of the Hb
measurement where 8.5 is
Thomas Beale wrote:
Concerning my last reply on this subject,
I feel the appropriate solution is:
* add an attribute value_qualifier of type STRING with allowable values
, , =, =, = (since this is a closed list, using coded terms doesn't
seem to be useful)
* allow ELEMENT.null_flavour and
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060317/f01184a7/attachment.pl
Tim Churches wrote:
Tim, if the accuracy_is_percent attribute was upgraded to a coded value,
could you suggest a set of meanings that would cover all the epi/PH
needs?
You'll have to tell me what that would involve. A single coded value? Upper
and lower limits? Confidence level.
Hi,
A few words from a non-techie.
Quantity means that what is the resulting figure expressing a quantity.
Hb: 8.5 mmol/L
A property of the Hb measurement can be an uncertainty.
This is not an uncertainty of the figure 8.5, but of the Hb
measurement where 8.5 is the correct resulting number
Concerning my last reply on this subject,
I feel the appropriate solution is:
* add an attribute value_qualifier of type STRING with allowable values
, , =, =, = (since this is a closed list, using coded terms doesn't
seem to be useful)
* allow ELEMENT.null_flavour and DV_QUANTIFIED.accuracy
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Beale
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 5:26 AM
Subject: Re: Pathology numeric values not supported in DV_Quantity
Grahame Grieve wrote:
hi
I don't think that the concept of , etc should
be conflated
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060302/3ceab95e/attachment.html
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060301/bd767cfc/attachment.html
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060301/14f81e20/attachment.html
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 08:31:23PM +0930, Sam Heard wrote:
I like the flags - I wonder if we should have a ? or ! for the value affected
by a quality issue - what do others think?
Probably ? for dubitable results. ! is commonly used
here for marking up (perhaps unexpectedly) clinically
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060301/d9463cb7/attachment.html
Thomas,
I agree it is very common.
But when 5 is reported in essence it means that it is an exception.
It is not a precise result. It does not mean that it is less than 5
only. It means that something of an exceptional state in in order.
It could be zero, it could be 4.999.. And anything in
Hi,
xx or yy
What does it mean?
To my mind it semantically means a state of exception. Meaning not
only that the measurement is xx or yy but that it is unmeasurable.
If this reasoning is true than each archetype with a measurement
needs an exception attribute.
In general this will be true
36 matches
Mail list logo
