@Christian_Reich,
Working on a study, we’re using NDC codes that are mapped to standard concepts. We have the list of standard concepts in a sub query. I have a question about the concepts that appear in CONCEPT_ID_1 where the concept_relationship INVALID REASON is null, but there’s a CONCEPT_ID_1 value that references a concept that has a non-null INVALID_REASON.
I’m working with 2 queries now, one where we find all standard concepts in concept_relationship’s CONCEPT_ID_2, and the concept_relationsihp’s INVALID REASON is not null, and we’ve also enforced that the set of standard concepts have INVALID_REASON is not null.
The difference becomes when we check that the NDC concept (found in concept_relationships CONCEPT_ID_1) has a null INVALID REASON. If we make sure that the concept in CONCEPT_ID_1 is INVALID_REASON is NULL, we drop records compared to when we don’t check for INVALID_REASON for the concept found in CONCEPT_ID_1.
The question is: why do we have a valid concept relationship (ie: the concept_relationship INVALID_REASON is null) for a relationship that is mapping an invalid source concept using the ‘Maps To’ relationship? Should I be checking that both the concept in concept_id_1 has INVALID_REASON is null, and concept_id_2 has INVALID_REASON is null, and the concept_relationship also has INVALID_REASON is null?
Thanks!
-Chris