Type concepts consolidation

CDM Builders
1

Friends, where are we with Type concepts consolidation?
I hear about this from time to time, but I can’t find the exact forum or github discussion (maybe I’m just bad at searching things :slight_smile: )

The idea behind is that we don’t need all these different vocabularies for Condition Type, Meas Type, Procedure Type.
For example we have these:
concept_id | concept_name | vocabulary_id
43542353 | Observation recorded from EHR | Condition Type
38000280 | Observation recorded from EHR | Observation Type
The fact was obtained from EHR, why do we have two separate entries for this?
Let’s have only one concept: ‘Fact recorded from EHR’ (or something like that).

1 Like
2

I’m not sure what happened to this excellent idea to clean up the Type concepts.
Maybe @DTorok knows?

3

In my overflowing to-do bucket. :frowning: Now, that the symposium is over, it has a true chance.

4

Should we just collapse and dedup the whole list into one vocabulary?
Use some key-word search, replacing Domain specific words with “Fact”.
For example ‘Observation recorded from EHR’ turns into ‘Fact recorded from EHR’.

I mean why bother you, @Christian_Reich if my team can do this.

1 Like
5

There are not that many. We can just do it in a spreadsheet. How about I give it a try in the airplane tomorrow and we go over?

6

Ok. Just Attach it here then please.

7

And please give some thought to this discussion and this discussion

@Christian_Reich

8

@Christian_Reich and @Dymshyts, Any status on the effort to clean up the Type concepts? This impacts the ‘Registry’ type concept as well.

9

Yessss. Will get to it. The dependency is the condition status, where some of the remnants of the condition types have to go. If I can find 30 minutes at some point…