In the context of EHDEN I am currently working on mapping some data to the proper vocabulary. Athena is being a bit help in this task, but I just stumbled upon something where I need some further help.
The data I am working on includes swollen and tender joint counts and SNOMED has matching concepts, see for example 376471000000106, but those concepts are ambiguous. My data always specifies the number of tender/swollen counts out of how many were actually counted. There are some standardised lists of joints, so there is no chaos. Doctors decide which of those they want to use and in research we make sure that we never compare counts that originate from the big list to those from the middle list, for example.
I expected to see those different lists implemented in the vocabulary, but they evidently are not. I am not sure how anybody can even use the current concepts without that information. You would be guaranteed to observe some anomalous effect where meticulous doctors have less healthy patients.
I considered hacking something together via the information about the maximum you can add to a entry, but at that point the people eventually using the data will have to be pretty careful to correctly interpret it, which kind of eliminates the purpose of this entire standardised mapping idea.
Am I missing something here? Currently I will probably just skip this information.