Standardizing weight data

General
1

This forum post is to create a discussion for CDM proposal for deeper semantic standardization (made in CDM WG).

The proposal can be found here:
http://www.ohdsi.org/web/wiki/doku.php?id=documentation:next_cdm:deeper_semantic

Recent interesting development is the PCORNet specs now have Implementation Guide in addition to the specs themselves.

Perhaps we can consider a similar approach. Currently we put it under the table specs as “conventions”.

Our conventions rarely mandate a specific concept_id for a given problem. (e.g., for weight)

See PCORNet examples below:

image.png915×389 33.3 KB

And a lab guidance

image.png1261×387 110 KB

1 Like
2

I totally agree with this approach and hope that the Oncology Standards workgroup can move in this same direction.

3

PEDSnet created an extensive (now 86 pages…) Conventions Document for its OMOP CDM V5.1 model so that the eight institutions were in alignment with subtle ETL decisions. I gave a presentation at AMIA on the PEDSnet conventions document. The work is under Charlie Bailey’s amazing leadership with Evanette Burrows as the mistress of all things related to PEDSnet’s version of the OMOP CDM.

Google folder with both documents here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0By1tgphRY1wpN1ExVkx6ZmlxdFE?usp=sharing

1 Like
4

It is nice to see the specs (by PCORNet (more specifically a subnetwork within PCORNet called PEDSnet) for deeper semantic integration. For example here: (from the above link).

We now have a “use-case excuse” (PCORNet researchers (subnetwork PEDSnet) found it useful to have)

image.png1074×872 141 KB

5

It is nice to see the specs (by PCORNet PEDSnet) for deeper semantic integration. For example here: (from the above link).

Hmmmm — strike thru markdown not working – this is PEDSnet, not PCORnet work…