documentation:oncology:meeting_notes_2019_jun-25
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Next revision | Previous revision Last revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
documentation:oncology:meeting_notes_2019_jun-25 [2019/06/26 10:37] mgurley created |
documentation:oncology:meeting_notes_2019_jun-25 [2019/06/27 14:09] mgurley |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| **Topics** | **Topics** | ||
| - | * Rimma Belenkaya went over the ETL instructions for ETLing oncology diagnosis modifier from NAACCR formatted tumor registry date into the OMOP Oncology CDM extension. See draft document here: https://github.com/OHDSI/OncologyWG/blob/master/documentation/NAACCR.Ingestion.into.OMOP.Vocabulary.-.Diagnostic.Modifiers.docx | + | * Rimma Belenkaya went over the ETL instructions for ETLing oncology diagnosis modifiers from NAACCR formatted tumor registry date into the OMOP Oncology CDM extension. See draft document here: https://github.com/OHDSI/OncologyWG/blob/master/documentation/NAACCR.Ingestion.into.OMOP.Vocabulary.-.Diagnostic.Modifiers.docx |
| * Maxim Moinat raised the issue of whether he should map European tumor registry data to NAACCR or go directly to SNOMED and/or LOINC. | * Maxim Moinat raised the issue of whether he should map European tumor registry data to NAACCR or go directly to SNOMED and/or LOINC. | ||
| - | * It was argued that even though it is less than ideal to map to NAACCR, this is the current right choice. We need to conventionalize our representation of oncology diagnosis and oncology diagnosis modifier structure and semantics to make analyses comparable across institutions. | + | * It was argued that even though it is less than ideal to map to NAACCR, this is the current right choice. We need to conventionalize our representation of oncology diagnosis modifier structure and semantics to make analyses comparable across institutions. |
| - | * It was stated that making NAACCR the standard oncology diagnosis modifier vocabulary was just a bootstrap towards agreeing upon canonical representations in SNOMED. Hopefully via the Nebraska Lexicon. | + | * It was stated that making NAACCR the standard oncology diagnosis modifier vocabulary is just a bootstrap towards agreeing upon canonical representations in SNOMED. Hopefully via the Nebraska Lexicon. |
| * Maxim Moinat agreed to attempt to map his European tumor registry data to NAACCR. If the overlap with NAACCR is not possible, the advice to map to NAACCR will need to be reconsidered. | * Maxim Moinat agreed to attempt to map his European tumor registry data to NAACCR. If the overlap with NAACCR is not possible, the advice to map to NAACCR will need to be reconsidered. | ||
| * The group was asked for volunteers to write SQL to derive Hemonc.org oncology drug regimens from low-level DRUG_EXPOSURE and EPISODE oncology diagnosis entries. Michael Gurley pointed to the following paper as a starting point: https://ascopubs.org/doi/pdf/10.1200/CCI.17.00002 | * The group was asked for volunteers to write SQL to derive Hemonc.org oncology drug regimens from low-level DRUG_EXPOSURE and EPISODE oncology diagnosis entries. Michael Gurley pointed to the following paper as a starting point: https://ascopubs.org/doi/pdf/10.1200/CCI.17.00002 | ||
documentation/oncology/meeting_notes_2019_jun-25.txt · Last modified: 2019/06/27 14:10 by mgurley
Page Tools
