| OHDSI Home | Forums | Wiki | Github |
Hello,
How to query the possible values for these fields?
For example, to populate note_type_concept_id field I applied filter on the vocabulary_id = ‘Note Type’ .
2. Also, can we leave note_class_concept_id and encoding_concept_id with 0 values if there is no any specific information on it?
Kind regards,
Tatiana
Note:
select * from concept where vocabulary_id='Note Type';
But: We are creating a whole hierarchy:
select a.min_levels_of_separation as a_min,
de.concept_id as de_id, de.concept_name as de_name, de.vocabulary_id as de_vocab, de.domain_id as de_domain, de.concept_class_id as de_class
from concept an
join concept_ancestor a on a.ancestor_concept_id=an.concept_id
join concept de on de.concept_id=a.descendant_concept_id
where an.concept_id=36209248
order by min_levels_of_separation;
We will replace the old one with these soon.
Language:
select * from concept where concept_name like '%language' and vocabulary_id='SNOMED' and concept_class_id='Qualifier Value' and invalid_reason is null;
But you probably need English: 4180186
Encoding and Note Class:
Not sure. We need to ask the folks who own all these changes: @HuaXu, @rimma, @noemie? Please help
I’d leave out or set to 0 for now.
Thank you @Christian_Reich
I was trying to find Language concept id (I thought these concept_id would exist in sort of ‘language’ domain)
I want to know how to find concept_id s for note_class_concept_id and encoding_concept_id, too
Yeah, we need to clean up the domains and have a proper way to link them to fields and tables. Will do.
Korean: concept_id=4175771
I am also looking out for answer to this one. Do we have any update on Encoding_Concept_Id. If not, can we use concept_id=0 for the same?
Wait. Aren’t you already discussing this here? Like in “the more often I ask, the more likely I will get it”? 
Lol, yes I am asking it there too. But not able to come up with an appropriate solution to it, Will it be OK to use encoding_concept_id=0 and notes_class_concept_id=0 ?
We’ll give you the UTF-8 concept. In the mean time, yes, use 0.
What is the problem with notes_class_cocnept_id?
Thank you for your prompt response.
Issue with notes_class_concept_id is how to populate note class for Discharge Summary or Progress note.
All there:
Progress Note: http://athena.ohdsi.org/search-terms/terms/706550
Discharge Summary: http://athena.ohdsi.org/search-terms/terms/706531
You can find them all in http://athena.ohdsi.org/search-terms/terms?vocabulary=LOINC&conceptClass=Doc+Type+of+Service.
Thank you again.
I will discuss it with the team and get back to you on this.
Is that all of ‘Note_type_concept’ in CDM Note table?
I counted all of them, there are 123 concepts on Athena.
Please tell me if it’s wrong. Thank you @Christian_Reich
Hi All,
I came across this discussion and it’s exactly what I’m dealing with right now. @Christian_Reich and @rimma, the documentation says to use the ‘Note Type’ vocabulary for the note_type_concept_id. @Christian_Reich is this still the case or is it replaced with the new hierarchy you mentioned above? Based on this old presentation from the NLP working group the note_class_concept_id encapsulated all the LOINC axes; however the presentation doesn’t mention the note_type_concept_id field. @HuaXu, do you know how to populate these two fields. Thanks!
Our original plan is to use LONIC fixe axes for note_type standardization. I have a student who is working on mapping note type to LONIC; but we are not sure if LONIC axes are the best to describe note types after reviewing note titles from five institutions. The short answer is that we currently don’t have a solution for populating note_type ids,
I’m not aware that Christian is developing a new note type hierarchy. Can you elaborate more about this? @Christian_Reich We could change our direction to work on mapping note types to your new hierarchy.
Hi @HuaXu,
What about using this list for note class and leave the note types as they are?
SELECT
COUNT(*)
FROM
concept_relationship
WHERE
concept_id_1 = 706391
http://athena.ohdsi.org/search-terms/terms/706391
That list has 2592 very specific notes. What about using those and updating the vocabulary accordingly? @Christian_Reich
He is not. What he did do is to make a proposal to consolidate all Type Concepts. So, instead of Note Types they are now Types. But the content is the same. It’s all LOINC.
