-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Review general mapping rules for diseases and phenotypes #16
Comments
@ImkeTammen I am interested in your thoughts here, in particular if your own mapping rules reflected in any of these.. Does this cover the choices you make to decide a mappings? |
cc @franknic |
For diseases:
The following conditions are not sufficient to say that 2 diseases are the same, but they give a clue that they could be (ie someone needs to manually review, and additional information is needed)
Diseases between species:
(@matentzn , is it the information you are looking for?) |
This is excellent. Thank you! This is what I wanted. Let's see what @ImkeTammen has to add! |
Mapping phenotypes
|
A slightly tangential but illuminating read on clinical mappings https://www.ohdsi.org/web/wiki/doku.php?id=documentation:vocabulary:mapping |
The idea is to figure out a clear recipe with which we can determine a match between two phenotypes and two diseases.
@sabrinatoro Can you help me with that? I would like to capture all the possible mapping rules that can lead to a mapping. This does not include your fine-grained work on distinguishing when to do "exact" vs "narrow" that you captured in your ICD10 work - just the general "thought processes" that can be applied to determine whether a mapping (exact or otherwise) holds.
Mapping diseases
When matching diseases, potentially across species, the following matching disease rules (MDR) can be applied:
Mapping phenotypes
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: