We’ve been thinking about mappings between LOINC parts and SNOMED attributes, but LOINC Answers were kind of out of the scope.
But I am agree, this catching of all the permutations of the same values is really annoying. Unfortunately, this fix will not resolve the other type of variability (please see below). So the reality is that in every other study we need to look into the data anyway.
BTW, does every ETL implies a standard practice to remap (through the concept_relationship) the non-Standard concepts that lies in the “value” area?
ID | CODE | NAME | CLASS | CONCEPT | VALIDITY | DOMAIN | VOCAB |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
45884084 | LA6576-8 | Positive | Answer | Standard | Valid | Meas Value | LOINC |
45879438 | LA9633-4 | Present | Answer | Standard | Valid | Meas Value | LOINC |
4183448 | 43261007 | Abnormal presence of | Qualifier Value | Standard | Valid | Meas Value | SNOMED |
4128650 | 260411009 | Presence findings | Qualifier Value | Standard | Valid | Meas Value | SNOMED |
4126674 | 260350009 | ++++ | Qualifier Value | Standard | Valid | Meas Value | SNOMED |
4125547 | 260349009 | +++ | Qualifier Value | Standard | Valid | Meas Value | SNOMED |
45877985 | LA11882-0 | Detected | Answer | Standard | Valid | Meas Value | LOINC |
45877737 | LA21225-0 | Yes, positive | Answer | Standard | Valid | Meas Value | LOINC |
45881864 | LA4677-6 | Positive / Elevated | Answer | Standard | Valid | Meas Value | LOINC |