The Connection between "Diagnosis" and "TNM classification"

[Wenjie225]

In the current version of SPHN schema (2023.02) that we are using, we have class "TNMClassification'' to map the tumor TNM stages from UM's DTS to RDF.

Since TNM stage (whether clinical or pathological) is an important element of one patient's diagnosis, we tried to connect it to Diagnosis on the onboarding tool. However, we could not create a direct predicate between ''TNMClassification'' and ''Diagnosis''. Instead, TNM could be directly linked to the patient/subject with an predicate called ''has administrative case'', or to the patient id with an predicate called ''has subject pseudo identifier''.

Question: How to connect ''Diagnosis'' and ''TNMClassification'' ?

Suggestion: We may consider extending AIDAVA ontology to establish a direct connection between diagnosis and TNM classification/TNM stage, then show the affiliative relationship of these medical concepts.

[KateSerafimova]

In case Diagnosis is removed - connection should be to ProblemCondition or other (like Disorder if it is introduced)

[KateSerafimova]

We need advice from @micheldumontier and Stefan on how to tackle this problem.

• Is TNM classification an observable entity?
• Is it related to Clinical finding (ProblemCondition) or to Specimen (Sample)?
• Should the TNM Classification concept be a subclass of Measurement (Observable entity) or should it stay as a separate class?