documentation:oncology:meeting_notes_2019_mar-12
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
documentation:oncology:meeting_notes_2019_mar-12 [2019/03/13 12:04] mgurley |
documentation:oncology:meeting_notes_2019_mar-12 [2019/03/13 13:38] mgurley |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| **Participants** | **Participants** | ||
| - | Christian Reich, Rimma Belankaya, Dmytry Dymshyts, Andrew Williams, Robert Miller | + | Christian Reich, Rimma Belankaya, Dmytry Dymshyts, Andrew Williams, Robert Miller, Michael Gurley |
| **Topics** | **Topics** | ||
| - | * 1 | + | * Reviewed Dmytry's latest progress on the NAACCR ingestion script. |
| - | * 2 | + | * Discussed the possibility of moving NAACCR schemas into a new structure to keep the CONCEPT.concept_code clean (not contain anything NOT in NAACCR source data). But we decided for version 1 we would include NAACCR schemas in the vocabulary, and include NAACCR schema IDs in site-dependent NAACCR items and NAACCR Item Codes. This means that ETL developers will have to know to use Rimma's ETL code to map NAACCR data into OMOP. |
| - | * 3 | + | * Agreed that mapping NAACCR schemas to ICD site/histology combinations is a must have for version 1 of NAACCR ingestion. Rimma's ETL SQL will not work without it. |
| + | * Discussed whether NAACCR site-dependent variables should be duplicated across schemas. Dmytry's first version of NAACCR ingestion is duplicating them. We agreed that they should not. Dmytry said he can dedupe them. | ||
| + | * Resolved "Curate NAACCR Items/Item Codes and OMOP domains": [[https://github.com/OHDSI/OncologyWG/issues/26]] | ||
| + | * Resolved "How should we handle long CONCEPT.concept_name entries that exceed 255 characters coming from NAACCR?": [[https://github.com/OHDSI/OncologyWG/issues/28]] | ||
| + | * Discussed: How should we handle 'Numeric' NAACCR items that define numeric ranges?:https://github.com/OHDSI/OncologyWG/issues/26 | ||
| + | * Resolved "How should we handle NAACCR provenance concepts?": [[https://github.com/OHDSI/OncologyWG/issues/32]] | ||
| + | * Discussed 'How should we handle versions of staging variables? For both TNM and AJCC variables?': [[https://github.com/OHDSI/OncologyWG/issues/31]] | ||
| + | * Resolved "Should we record dates as a separate measurement record.(e.g. Date regional lymph node dissection NAACCR #682)?":https://github.com/OHDSI/OncologyWG/issues/33 | ||
| + | * Resolved "How do we handle different versions of NAACCR?": [[https://github.com/OHDSI/OncologyWG/issues/34]] | ||
| + | |||
| - | **Decisions and next steps** | ||
| - | - Submit Diagnosis and Treatment Proposal to the CDM Workgroup | ||
| - | - [[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14Gmkypv15scPma-FmyDsxN3CDiRokAj7KaZk_-94xj0/edit?usp=sharing|Detailed Vocabulary Tasks]] | ||
| - | - Collect community use cases here: [[http://forums.ohdsi.org/t/oncology-data-use-cases/4382|oncology-data-use-cases]] | ||
documentation/oncology/meeting_notes_2019_mar-12.txt · Last modified: 2019/03/13 13:38 by mgurley
Page Tools
