We can add. We have them internally. Didn’t think it would help, but hey, seems it does. Next release.
Hi,
Is a measurement recorded by the monitor or the ventilator defined by type_concept EHR 32817 ? Or is there another which references measurement collected by a machine ?
It might be good to add non-standard to standard mapping relationships from the spreadsheet to OHDSI vocabulary.
@alexander do you mean these?
Looks like a really good idea.
Have you guys used this table and validate the mapping proposed by @DTorok ?
We had those started, but then didn’t bring them in. Reasons: (i) lack of use case (nobody has Type Concepts as source data), (ii) ambiguity in the maps and (iii) lack of a Wide Mapping table. Some of them have to be split into Status concepts.
We used them in our ETL and after updating version of dictionaries we had to re-map few concepts manually as they are not standard any more.
I can’t say it was a big deal for us, but it would be better to have non-standard to standard mapping after the consolidation of some concepts in the vocabs to make the update easier. It looks a little weird when type concepts are not standard anymore and are not mapped to standard ones.
I agree. This has been an issue for some our sites. If the “maps to” could be added to these deprecated concepts, it would make life easier for many ETLs.
We did it intentionally in order to avoid ambiguity in mapping of those that can’t get 1-to-1 links.