Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- projects:workgroups:wg_meeting_04132016 [2016/05/11 09:55] – anu_gururaj1
+++ projects:workgroups:wg_meeting_04132016 [2016/05/11 10:00] (current) – anu_gururaj1
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
         - Extend the note source value field to 255 varchar
         - In terms of the type of service, LOINC ontology is very complicated, A flat architecture would be better for the current purpose. Comparison with another institution should be carried out.
-        - The note table in the OMOP CDM has a note type field with about 10 or so note types
+        - Date is to be added to the table        -
-        -
+        - Include all NLP concepts into one table called Note_NLP/Term_mention Table. This is an intermediate table that can then be linked to other tables in the CDM such as concept
         - Next steps:
-          - Comparison of what aspects of LOINC is being used across different institutions.
+          - Schedule another meeting in the following week to continue the discussion
-          - One of the deliverable is to build a system that can map the institutional note type to the LOINC note types.
-          - Update the note type field of the note table in OMOP CDM. Should a subset of LOINC document types be used for this purpose? this would depend on the real-world data from various institutions.
-          - Ontologies such as CP, ICD-9 etc. that include more clinical terminologies should also be explored.
-   - existing ontologies from Vanderbilt - Hua - {{:projects:workgroups:document-types.zip|}}
 ===Action Items===
-  - Suggestion for OMOP model regarding NLP output - Hua/Noemie
+  - Meeting next week to continue discussion
-  - 2016 OHDSI symposium - plan is to present the search engine, medical record viewer (a chart review tool) from Scott; any other suggestions?
   - Share strategies for combining data from different searches - Jon
   - Wrappers for cTAKES and Metamap - Min