search

OHDSI / Vocabulary-v5.0

Build process for the OHDSI Standardized Vocabularies. Currently not available as independent release.
The Unlicense
222 stars 75 forks source link

Missing ICD9/ICD10 hierarchical concepts and associated relationships #354

Open MaximMoinat opened 5 years ago

MaximMoinat commented 5 years ago

Original issue: https://github.com/OHDSI/CommonDataModel/issues/271

Although ICD is not a standard concept, addition of the hierarchy would be useful for classification of conditions. However, as mentioned in the referenced issue, the higher level ICD chapters (I to XXII) and sections (e.g. 'A00-A09') are missing in the OMOP vocabulary. All chapters for ICD10 can be found in this ICD browser from the WHO.

Would this be a welcome addition to the vocabularies?

Additional consideration; make ICD10 'official' classification concepts for conditions. Currently these are MedDRA terms, but it is not available at every data site because it requires a licence.

cgreich commented 5 years ago

Hm, @MaximMoinat. Slippery slope here.

For the Standardized Vocabularies to work we need to agree on ONE standard concept representing the meaning. When we add ICD10 we kill that and go back to the Babylonian language confusion. Don't forget: Every country has their own ICD10, which makes matters worse. Finally, the ICD10 Hierarchy sucks. There is no proper Description Logic (rules of inheritance of explicitly declared attributes for each concept), and each concept can only have only one parent. The hierarchical choices also often clash with how SNOMED sees the world.

In other words: Don't go there if you want to stay out of major trouble.

cukarthik commented 5 years ago

@cgreich, I agree we want to SNOMED to be standard, but I'm thinking it might be useful to have the fully ICD hierarchy, especially if part of it is in there already. I would think we want people to navigate terminologies in the way they are familiar and then direct them to the standard codes. I know the hierarchy can be misleading b/c some standard codes could be missed, but the tools should help us identify those issues.

cgreich commented 5 years ago

@cukarthik : I know. We want that. I want it more than anybody. And we have the hierarchical relationships, look yourself into Athena. But not in the CONCEPT_ANCESTOR table. That only contains standard concepts.

jscherdin commented 5 years ago

Going back to my original request. While the relationship data does exist for the ICD9/10 concepts that are in OMOP, the top levels are missing as concepts in OMOP preventing people from showing the entire hierarchy. It seems that adding less than 100 concepts and their relationships into OMOP would be pretty simple and yet provide a huge value to many groups

cgreich commented 5 years ago

What's missing, @jscherdin?

jscherdin commented 5 years ago

I already created an issue to document this: https://github.com/OHDSI/CommonDataModel/issues/271

cgreich commented 5 years ago

Ah, yes. Will put in.

MaximMoinat commented 5 years ago

Any progress on this issue? Liked the discussion, but not sure whether we have agreed that we want this or not. And is any help needed? @cgreich

jscherdin commented 5 years ago

Following up. @cgreich what is the status on this? Is there a timeline?

cgreich commented 5 years ago

Let's do next release. Couple weeks or so.

mik-ohdsi commented 1 year ago

@cgreich - this is an issue lurking from the fog of ancient times, but touching that MedDRA requirement as classification which is indeed somewhat weird... (remember the forum post around Achilles?) What do you think?