OHDSI Home | Forums | Wiki | Github

Missing relationships

We have Units from the SNOMED vocab which lack a “Maps to” relationship to a standard concept_id. Examples: concept_id IN (4118323, 4118000, 4118325, 4117806). Shouldn’t these map to a standard concept_id from UCUM vocabulary?

They should.
@Eduard_Korchmar @Alexdavv
Can we incluide it in the upcoming SNOMED release?

We could include partial mappings for this release, if we take them from manual work done for dm+d vocabulary. We’ll try to include more than that if possible.

1 Like

@MPhilofsky What’s the use case? Do you have these SNOMED units in the source?

1 Like

We have them in our source. I was reviewing mapping rates and noticed we have source_concept_ids > 0 (there isn’t a unit_source_concept_id, but we have an internal mapping table to go from source values to standard concepts), but not standard concept_ids > 0.

You are probably aware of recent release, but for people, who would be looking at this topic later, I will keep a link to the release, where Snomed units were mapped

Here it is!

Please note, that only units that can be mapped, were mapped. It should cover 99.9% usecases

1 Like