Diagnosis: remove ICD-9 from ICD-10 tree?

[jklann]

There is a feeling that ICD-9 should be removed from the ICD-10 tree (there is still a separate ICD-9 tree). Please comment if you have feelings on this!

E-mail thread:

Shawn Murphy said: Thinking [removal of combined tree] would make it less mapping dependent for this audience. Clearly it depends of the type of user we are trying to satisfy.

From the transforms point of view, it seems that repeating codes in various ontologies is causing problems.

Thanks, Shawn.

From: "Weber, Griffin M" griffin_weber@hms.harvard.edu

My opinion on this is:

Partners created the mixed ICD10 and ICD9 ontology to make queries easier for investigators. This is useful in a stand alone i2b2 instance. However, I don't think this is appropriate for a federated network. There is no official ICD10-ICD9 mapping. So, different institutions might handle this differently. It is also challenging to map data across institutions. Mixing ontologies makes this more complicated. My suggestion would be to have an ICD10 ontology and a separate ICD9 ontology in SCILHS. If they have to be mixed, then update the ETL to exclude ICD9 codes within the ICD10 ontology. This can probably be done using the c_fullname in combination with a regular expression on the pcori_basecode field.

[jklann]

Recent discussions have made us decide not to do this.