We are interested in using the FACT_RELATIONSHIP table to represent clinical reasoning. As part of the process we would like to aggregate similar concepts appearing in the medical record. For example, if a patient has numerous diagnosis of diabetes type 2, NLP mentions of type 2 diabetes we would like to create a “rolled up” concept using fact relationship table. This could then be used in a treatment relationship with a rolled up version of metformin for example. Is this a reasonable use case? I would love to hear if anyone is using this table in the real world.
Implementing this also appears tricky as FACT_RELATIONSHIP is supposed to provide mappings to specific tables by using the DOMAIN table. This suggests that the domain_name in the DOMAIN table (for example ‘Person’) should map to the PERSON table. However, the pre-existing data for DOMAIN does NOT include all tables (at least in our OMOP load) and it may be out of sync as per:
Would it be reasonable to add a DOMAIN for each table currently in the schema? Or is this something that each site should do on a as needed basis?
Thanks for any thoughts,