Thanks, Tim. We're coming from a variety of backgrounds -- with a range of informatics expertise and clinical pharmacy expertise. On the informatics side, RxNorm is definitely in active use.
However, there's a large gap between resources appropriate for systems development and those used for clinical purposes [1]. There's a lot of work needed to close this gap. The minimal information model we are developing is a start, in making a knowledge representation that can (compactly, computably) record the clinically relevant information. More informatics expertise is always welcome -- the standards part of the taskforce meets Thursday if you want to get involved: https://sites.google.com/site/ddikrandir/home/ddi_info_model_taskforce -Jodi [1] You'll see, for instance, that for side effects and interactions the NLM itself doesn't recommend the RxNorm's Drug Interactions API but rather clinical information, including John Horn's “Drug Interactions Analysis and Management”: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/Subject_Guides/druginformation/specializedaspects/sideeffectsandinteractions/index.html On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Timothy Cook <t...@datainsights.tech> wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Timothy Cook <t...@datainsights.tech> > wrote: > >> >> >> Apologies for being to vague. Why are people doing this DDI work when >> this great resource is already available? >> If ou are not familiar with RxNorm, a little bit of observation and >> reading will explain what it is. >> >> > Opps, 'too vague' and 'If you'. Early morning fingers I guess. :-) > > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Timothy Cook [mailto:t...@datainsights.tech] >>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 26, 2016 3:30 PM >>> *To:* Richard Boyce >>> *Cc:* public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; linik...@gmail.com; >>> brian.leba...@va.gov; bho...@genelex.com; cjvit...@partners.org; >>> cui....@uth.tmc.edu; mal...@pharmacy.arizona.edu; >>> daniela.olive...@insight-centre.org; e...@squishymedia.com; >>> draper.e...@mayo.edu; george.li...@va.gov; gmce...@ashp.org; >>> jschnei...@pobox.com; har...@pitt.edu; jeffniel...@gmail.com; >>> sundaram.medimm...@gmail.com; jrh...@u.washington.edu; jkli...@ncpdp.org; >>> j...@rxdoc.me; jmba...@stanford.edu; ka...@pitt.edu; kim.no...@pfizer.com; >>> laura.slaugh...@gmail.com; lori.idem...@gmail.com; >>> pet...@pharmacy.arizona.edu; maria.herr...@kcl.ac.uk; >>> breitenstein.matt...@mayo.edu; mbrochhau...@uams.edu; >>> matthias.samw...@meduniwien.ac.at; michel.dumont...@stanford.edu; >>> michael.mil...@systemsbiology.org; michael.lieb...@ipqanalytics.com; >>> m...@jackpo.org; na...@worldvista.org; nick.tatone...@columbia.edu; >>> hassanza...@us.ibm.com; yongq...@med.umich.edu; oliv...@nlm.nih.gov; >>> be...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de; nyt...@idi.ntnu.no; >>> ratnesh.sa...@insight-centre.org; freimuth.rob...@mayo.edu; >>> sam.hab...@gmail.com; scott.nelson...@gmail.com; serkanay...@gmail.com; >>> vale...@genelex.com; xjing2...@gmail.com >>> *Subject:* Re: Minutes from the 2/24/16 DDI Information task force >>> discussion (content sub group) >>> >>> >>> >>> Why? >>> >>> >>> >>> https://rxnav.nlm.nih.gov/InteractionAPIs.html# >>> <https://rxnav.nlm.nih.gov/InteractionAPIs.html> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Richard Boyce <rd...@pitt.edu> wrote: >>> >>> (FYI for folks on the public-semweb-lifesci list who are not >>> participating in the task force [1]) >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Below I have pasted the minutes from the last meeting of the content >>> sub-team for the DDI Minimum Information Model task force [1]. I apologize >>> that I was forgot to record the meeting but I have tried to write detailed >>> minutes. The full set of minutes for the task force are available [2]. >>> >>> 1. >>> https://sites.google.com/site/ddikrandir/home/ddi_info_model_taskforce >>> 2. https://goo.gl/TKWfNN >>> >>> ------------ >>> Minutes for 2/24/2016 (Content subgroup) >>> >>> >>> >>> *In Attendance : Dan Malone, Evan Draper, John Horn, Oktie Hassanzadeh, >>> Richard Boyce, Sam Habiel* >>> >>> >>> >>> Meeting recording: None taken (Rich forgot to start the recording, >>> Sorry!) >>> >>> >>> >>> Meeting: >>> >>> · Brief discussion of progress on the *proposed task force >>> activities:* >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. *Clarify definitions *for the seven minimum information items >>> recommended by prior AHRQ drug interaction conference series >>> >>> o A sub-team has been working on creating definitions. Initial ideas >>> have been developed and will be discussed over the next month: >>> https://goo.gl/N0MxPd >>> >>> o Some questions were raised by the sub-team that were discussed >>> later during the meeting. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. *Propose additional attributes* >>> >>> o Depends on Activity 1 >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. *Create deliverables* using an interesting and non-trivial set of >>> potential drug-drug interactions: >>> >>> o Depends on Activities 1 and 2 >>> >>> 4. *Create a foundation for further collaborative work* by >>> disseminating results through an interest group note, a website, and an >>> online discussion forum >>> >>> o Ratnesh Sahay has created a project that will be used for >>> advancing development of the interest group note: >>> https://github.com/W3C-HCLS/w3c-ddi >>> >>> i. A very initial outline >>> can be seen here: http://goo.gl/ZMU1Wm >>> >>> ii. All persons who have >>> participated in the calls have been listed as contributors for now (in >>> alphabetical order by first name). Please email Rich Boyce with spelling >>> corrections and the affiliation you would like (or if you would like your >>> name removed) >>> >>> o Scott Nelson submitted a panel proposal on 3/10 to AMIA to discuss >>> the topic of including seriousness as a minimum information item >>> >>> >>> >>> · Discussion of what DDI content to include in our deliverables. >>> >>> o Sub-team members had made progress on suggesting interacting pairs >>> based on known issues with DDI evidence and knowledge >>> >>> § See https://goo.gl/rYpmjt >>> >>> o Rich created a survey to increase the participation: >>> https://pitt.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0GPfzm7UbGDYV5X >>> >>> § *Survey closes EOB Wednesday 3/30* >>> >>> o It was decided that only one or two PDDIs will be selected for >>> each category. The group agreed that, for each PDDI, a decision tree will >>> be created that provides 1) information that can help contextualize the >>> interaction depending on drug and patient factors, 2) management >>> recommendations depending on the contextualizing factors in (1), and 3) >>> evidence supporting or refuting each scientific claim made for (1) >>> >>> § Such decision trees have already been created by John Horn and Phil >>> Hansten for several interactions as part of Dan Malone’s AHRQ grant >>> (R21HS023826). >>> >>> · These can be used for the project as long as we provide >>> citation to the authors and grant. >>> >>> · These interactions might fit as representative for certain >>> information categories. The group agreed that, for those cases, additional >>> interactions will be chosen to provide heterogeneity >>> >>> · Discussion of stakeholders >>> >>> o The question of who the stakeholders are for the min info model >>> came up from the Standard sub-team. The content sub-team agreed that the >>> stakeholders included primarily the following: >>> >>> § Clinicians (doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and various practitioners) >>> who must use PDDI information to make clinical decisions >>> >>> § Persons who create systems that provide PDDI information to >>> clinicians in various settings (e.g., database vendors, drug information >>> editorial boards) >>> >>> § Organizations that provide publicly available lists of drug-drug >>> interactions (e.g., developers of RxNorm) >>> >>> o Clarification of this in writing is planned >>> >>> · Discussion of use cases: >>> >>> o Members of the standard sub-team had suggested using Medication >>> Reconciliation as a target use case for showing the value of the info model >>> (e.g., competency questions). Rich asked the content sub-team for comment >>> >>> § It was agreed that med rec is an important use case but one that can >>> probably be broken down into a number of smaller use cases depending on the >>> phase of the medication therapy process in question (e.g., ordering, >>> consulting, monitoring) >>> >>> o Clarification of this in writing is planned and also a focused >>> discussion at our “all team” meeting in May. >>> >>> · *Action Items* >>> >>> § Rich will merge the final results of the survey on suggested PDDIs ( >>> https://pitt.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0GPfzm7UbGDYV5X) into the >>> google sheet (https://goo.gl/rYpmjt) >>> >>> § He will then go through and highlight the PDDIs for which decision >>> trees have been created as part of Dan Malone’s AHRQ grant >>> >>> - The next meeting will finalize the list and future meetings will >>> finalize decision trees for the chosen interactions. In parallel, >>> the >>> standard sub-team will work on representing the chosen >>> interactions, >>> seeking feedback as they go. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Richard D Boyce, PhD >>> >>> Assistant Professor of Biomedical Informatics >>> >>> Faculty, Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing >>> >>> Faculty, Geriatric Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Gero-Informatics Research >>> and Training Program >>> >>> University of Pittsburgh >>> >>> rd...@pitt.edu >>> >>> Office: 412-648-9219 >>> >>> Twitter: @bhaapgh >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Timothy W. Cook, President >>> >>> Data Insights, Inc. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Timothy W. Cook, President >> Data Insights, Inc. >> > > > > -- > Timothy W. Cook, President > Data Insights, Inc. >