-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 99
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
Gender checks that use descendant concepts + meas unit pairs cleared #524
Changes from 1 commit
6e2da09
a673458
1dc8394
8884133
7a4432f
f7f2e44
213de7f
967c3a7
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
…se_descendants.sql, added missing check_description
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -46,5 +46,5 @@ Suggests: | |
R.utils | ||
Remotes: | ||
ohdsi/Eunomia | ||
RoxygenNote: 7.2.2 | ||
RoxygenNote: 7.2.3 | ||
Encoding: UTF-8 |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -335,6 +335,7 @@ CONDITION_OCCURRENCE,CONDITION_CONCEPT_ID,45772671,Nodular prostate without urin | |
CONDITION_OCCURRENCE,CONDITION_CONCEPT_ID,"4090861, 4025213","Male genitalia finding, Male reproductive finding",,,,,,,,,,Male,,2,,,,,,,,,,,,, | ||
CONDITION_OCCURRENCE,CONDITION_CONCEPT_ID,"4095793 , 443343, 4024004 , 4172857, 444094 , 197810, 4158481","Female genitalia finding, Disorder of intrauterine contraceptive device, Menopause finding, Disorder of female genital system, Malignant neoplasm of uterine adnexa, Finding related to pregnancy, Female reproductive finding",,,,,,,,,,Female,,2,,,,,,,,,,,,, | ||
PROCEDURE_OCCURRENCE,PROCEDURE_CONCEPT_ID,4041261,Procedure on female genital system,,,,,,,,,,Female,,2,,,,,,,,,,,,, | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is there a reason for not including 4041262 - Procedure on male genital system? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The OMOP vocabulary hierarchy is wrong in some concepts here, HCPCS "procedures on prostate OR perineum" has both parents "procedures on prostate" and "procedures on perineum". but it's OR and these codes are used in females. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I was not able to find the concepts in the example you are referring to. In any case, I suggest to not wait for a vocabulary update, and already add a set of more specific concepts for male procedures that do not include prostate. e.g. these three:
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. yes, sorry, it was Procedure on scrotum that lead to concept: |
||
PROCEDURE_OCCURRENCE,PROCEDURE_CONCEPT_ID,"4250917, 4077750, 4043199, 4040577","Operation on prostate, Operation on scrotum, Procedure on penis, Procedure on testis",,,,,,,,,,Male,,2,,,,,,,,,,,,, | ||
OBSERVATION,OBSERVATION_CONCEPT_ID,37393449,Plasma total cholesterol level,8840,milligram per deciliter,50,5,,500,5,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | ||
OBSERVATION,OBSERVATION_CONCEPT_ID,37393449,Plasma total cholesterol level,8753,millimole per liter,1,5,,15,5,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | ||
OBSERVATION,OBSERVATION_CONCEPT_ID,37397989,Serum total cholesterol level,8840,milligram per deciliter,50,5,,500,5,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | ||
|
Unchanged files with check annotations Beta
} else if (checkResults[i, ]$checkLevel == "CONCEPT") { | ||
if (is.na(checkResults[i, ]$unitConceptId) && | ||
grepl(",", checkResults[i, ]$conceptId)) { | ||
thresholdFilter <- sprintf( | ||
"conceptChecks$%s[conceptChecks$cdmTableName == '%s' & | ||
conceptChecks$cdmFieldName == '%s' & | ||
conceptChecks$conceptId == '%s']", | ||
thresholdField, | ||
checkResults[i, ]$cdmTableName, | ||
checkResults[i, ]$cdmFieldName, | ||
checkResults[i, ]$conceptId | ||
) | ||
notesFilter <- sprintf( | ||
"conceptChecks$%s[conceptChecks$cdmTableName == '%s' & | ||
conceptChecks$cdmFieldName == '%s' & | ||
conceptChecks$conceptId == '%s']", | ||
notesField, | ||
checkResults[i, ]$cdmTableName, | ||
checkResults[i, ]$cdmFieldName, | ||
checkResults[i, ]$conceptId | ||
) | ||
} | ||
else if (is.na(checkResults[i, ]$unitConceptId) && |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
could you actually please put the concept checks at the end of the file, after the new plausible temporal checks? just so all FIELD are grouped together, and then CONCEPT :)