OHDSI Home | Forums | Wiki | Github

Empty Read's concept_name?

Vocabulary Users
#1

Hello,

Am new here, apologies if this issue has already been discussed …

There seems to be a bunch of Read codes with empty concept name, is that intentional?

Thanks,
Chen

#2

I’m having the same problem. There are a large number of read codes that don’t have a concept_name and are therefore cannot be loaded into the database.

These are the concept_id codes:
[1] 45429564 45429577 45429605 45419768 45419784 45418832 45429630
[8] 45428425 45426232 45426233 45426237 45425050 45422994 45422998
[15] 45423012 45423019 45421847 45423065 45456113 45456117 45456121
[22] 45456122 45452796 45452836 45452837 45455218 45486356 45486357
[29] 45461221 45463651 45463750 45456913 45453519 45473014 45473021
[36] 45473031 45466260 45458158 45466304 45466316 45462882 45462888
[43] 45462902 45459442 45459447 45459448 45459451 45459452 45459459
[50] 45459464 45465224 45480420 45477089 45477103 45473706 45486312
[57] 45486335 45486352 45482849 45482850 45474943 45485261 45482979
[64] 45483057 45479683 45479691 45479692 45479741 45479742 45476340
[71] 45476344 45476357 45476362 45432915 45485419 45476456 45477733
[78] 45469714 45487081 45483694 45474414 45481396 45442760 45439488
[85] 45439501 45439529 45438365 45436173 45436186 45438525 45444216
[92] 45444250 45446833 45446878 45443498 45441177 45440214 45449418
[99] 45449432 45449464 45449496 45446130 45446131 45446137 45446138
[106] 45446139 45446140 45446145 45496901 45499367 45502830 45502851
[113] 45501639 45493634 45506103 45506115 45502858 45499490 45499522
[120] 45499537 45490322 45505196 45496215 45496237 45492896 45492904
[127] 45492908 45492910 45492918 45489627 45489629 45489632 45498752
[134] 45496876 45496185 45496206 45498597 45512844 45512848 45512849
[141] 45522804 45522815 45519507 45519508 45519514 45519519 45516135
[148] 45516255 45516270 45509451 45509463 45488952 45523526 45508457
[155] 45523533 45512114 45513684 45520248

#3

Thanks for reporting.
Yeah, it sits there for a while already.
All concepts these are deprecated and not used anywhere. So as far as I know, it doesn’t affects anything.
But, yes, it’s really annoying.
We’ll take a look what we can do with this.

#4

@Doc_Ed If you’d like to keep them in your database, an immediate solution is to convert the “null” concept_name fields to “empty string” when loading to database.

#5

Many thanks! I don’t actually have a need for the vocabulary right now, so have dropped it. Read codes are hopefully being phased out throughout the NHS, though I gather they are still in widespread use in primary care.

#6

These codes seem to be absent from source data from at least as far as 2015. I’m not sure where did they come from in the first place.

Some of these codes were mapped to SNOMED and we could substitute their names with those of their respective mapping targets, but some concepts don’t have any outside references. Meaning of concepts without mappings is fully lost.

@Alexdavv, have you encountered these codes?

#7

Both GPI and Read vocabularies are affected.
In order to follow the model’s convention there was a proposal to update the names:

  • ‘No name provided - mapped to <concept_name of target_concept_id>’
  • ‘No name provided’ if ‘Maps to’ doesn’t exist
1 Like
#8

I like that.
Let’s add this to the next release of GPI and Read.

t