CDM Votes from 09Apr2019 Meeting

[krfeeney (Kristin Kostka, MPH)]

I’ve been heavily lurking on this chain with great intrigue. I feel a bit like the Mueller report. No real conclusion and yet the dialogue is telling.

The idea of enabling location-based analysis has a lot of applicability into public health studies. Perhaps we need to engage some of our friends at the CDC (@rjking – maybe this is where you could help ) and better understand the intent of how these fields would be used in analysis.

[QI_omop (Qi Yang)]

@pavgra

I voted “No” to the proposal and here is the reason. There are also many other location related attributes and other dimension related attributes out there. If we have to add them one by one as a new column into the current dimension tables (Location, Provider, and Care_Site), it will be hard to scale and not economical. So we need a more holistic approach to the issue which I have propose in this thread:

Proposal to add a new table - Dimension Attribute table into CDM

@Christian_Reich Regarding hospital attribute use case, I will ask client’s permission to post it. As for other attributes, we can discuss in detail what their definitions are and how they have bee used in clinical research. But the main point I want to bring up is that by adding this table (Dimension_Attribute) to the CDM, we have a holistic approach to all the dimension attribute issues listed out there, such as the ones below: Region_concecpt_id - hotly debated right now. Specialty &…

So if we can adopt this new approach, we can certainly add more attributes (including region_concept_id) without disrupting the existing dimension table structure. The future addition of any new attribute will become adding a new concept instead of adding a new column and that will be a lot easier. Sorry that I was not able to attend last CDM work group meeting. We typically have client demo on Tuesday 1 pm.

[pavgra (Pavel Grafkin)]

@clairblacketer, any updates on adding this into develop?

[clairblacketer]

@pavgra this was added to development.

One note - the Sql Server, Postgres, and Oracle DDLs, constraints, and indices are fully supported and tested. The scripts for BigQuery, Netezza, Impala, Redshift, and Parallel Data Warehouse are available on the development branch but they are not tested. Instead, they were created by translating from the Sql Server version through SqlRender. This may or may not impact you but it is an important change to be aware of.