Paper on OHDSI Phenotyping Practices vs. Global Regulatory Guidance

[Gowtham_Rao]

@Christian_Reich

Of course, my main bone of contention, as you know, is the point of the “clinical description”. It is both undefined as well as useless when folks just paste medical textbook chapters or GPT text. What we really talking about is research purpose and how it aligns with the artifacts relevant to the clinic. I give you an example. A couple of Phebruaries ago, we had the phenotype of “Parkinson’s disease”, and the question came up if drug-induced parkinsonism should be part of it or not. Obviously, if you want to study, say, treatments modulating neurodegenerative pathogenetic processes, it should not be included. If, however, you are studying symptomatic treatments or disease complications it very much should. Of course, you could make any of this part of the “clinical description” and ignore the suboptimal term, but right now it is not specified at all.

Hi @Christian_Reich - agree with you about the research intent. See here Manuscript Draft: Clinical Descriptions as Semantic Anchors: A Best Practice in OHDSI Phenotype Development

lets continue clinical description/research intent over there.