@aostropolets: shouldn’t they be using https://github.com/ohdsi-studies/ConceptPrevalence ?
1 Like
@schuemie and @aostropolets - Apologies I was trying to install from study protocal sandbox repository.
Yes, now it works after using the link provided by @schuemie . Thanks for the help
Anna, is there an easy way to see the entire list of concepts and standard concepts with frequencies (in descending order) in Atlas?
1 Like
I don’t think it’s possible. Is there anything specific you want to do with such a list?
I would be interested in seeing which concepts are actually the most prevalent and how that changes over time. If I need to update maps, etc. I’d like to focus on the highest used terms, etc.
Were you able to receive my results? Based on our discussion in github last week, I also sent a test mail from my mail id to ao2671@cumc.columbia.edu
Hi @SELVA_MUTHU_KUMARAN, I received your files. Thanks a lot for participation! 
@aostropolets Hello, perhaps I should submit this as a separate thread, but it seems related to your post above about many datasets being combined for the Concept Prevalence project.
What is the current source of the RC and DRC (row count and descendent row count) data here: https://atlas-covid19.ohdsi.org/#/home ? Do you know where I might find documentation about this RC and DRC source? The Data Source tab says CMSDESynPuf1k, but from what I think I know about that dataset, that dataset is too small to measure up to the hundreds of millions of DRCs that are in atlas-covid19 for some concepts. From your post above, it seems it may be the compilation of many datasets.
Thank you for your time!
@tjbest Yes, the RC and DRC counts in that atlas instance are the combined network concept prevalence data counts from @aostropolets
1 Like
Thank you, @admin
Hi @aostropolets @lee_evans Do you know where I can find the downloadable version of the network prevalence counts? I know it should be obvious but somehow it has eluded me.
Thanks!
Jon
Hi Jon, the concept prevalence counts in public Atlas have been replaced by the much more recent counts from 40+ data sources collected in the OHDSI Network (thank you @clairblacketer!). The old concept prevalence counts are not available for public download.
@aostropolets , if we get a matched concepts (via “Maps to” relationship) and they are standard, but they expired. Should we map them to 0 instead? Thank you in advance for you reply. Whenever we take up on new version of vocabulary tables we run into this issue.
Hello @stephanieshong
You should map a non-standard concept_id via the ‘Maps to’ AND ‘Maps to value’ relationships in the Concept Relationship to standard concept_ids. If a concept_id is standard, it can be used in the CDM.