These changes were caused by Snomed. They changed concept_class_id of these concepts from Body Structure to Morph Abnormality and we incorporated these changes during our release in August 2022.
I guess, the logic behind the changes was the following: post-surgical anatomy should be considered not an anatomically normal body structure, hence morphological abnormality.
Our vocabularies are quite consistent with all the related concepts
SELECT ca.ancestor_concept_id, c.*
FROM concept_ancestor ca
JOIN concept c
ON c.concept_id = ca.descendant_concept_id
AND ca.ancestor_concept_id = 4084082; --Post-surgical anatomy
Now the question for the ETLer is whether these concepts still represent valid anatomic sites for the Specimen record. The Accepted Concepts from the current CDM require Spec Anatomic Site and Body Structure.
Have you ever come across the following example and if so, how have you managed this within your ETL?
Where a primary procedure (Snomed code) standard concept sits under a domain of ‘Procedure’ but there a secondary Snomed code that sits under the domain of ‘Spec Anatomic Site’:
44513291 - Attention to dressing of skin NEC - Procedure
4055938 - Skin Structure of Interior Trunk - Spec Anatomic Site
In this example there would be 1 record in the Procedure_Occurrence table and 1 record in Specimen with a null Specimen_Concept_id but a value present in the ‘Anatomic_site_concept_id’ field.