Friends:
Can I ask for a favor: Let’s not have different mappings in parallel. That will derail us, because everybody will have a different reality when querying data. Instead, let’s find these systematic problems and fix them.
We have looked at the with and without extensively. We don’t want to do a plain mapping to these in SNOMED, because they are often pretty “dyssocial”, which means they don’t have or don’t have the right hierarchical relationships. Instead, we map to the actual conditions. If something isn’t mentioned - then we won’t mention it either.
I also would advise against the equivalence map. It is only a partial map, we used it as input to our map, and it only does equivalents. Many ICD9 codes are complex, and the equivalent concepts actually have problems: they sound the same, but they have very different children.
All together: I think USAGI is a great tool for efficient mapping of local codes. For mapping of hierarchies to each other it is too simple.
Bill: Can you give me examples of with/without mappings you don’t like, and we discypher?
C