Closed cuboideum closed 2 years ago
I like option 2. Even if it is possible to identify the ankylosing vertebrae from the individual recording, this would make it clearer. However, we would also need an option in case the vertebra preservation is too poor and individual vertebrae cannot be numbered. In this case it should still be possible to count how many vertebrae are actually affected, just not if it is T1-T3 or T2-T4 for example.
I agree with Hannah that option 2 is preferable. However, we might have more than 1-2 vertebrae ankylosed.
Commit https://github.com/RDFBones/Phaleron-Pathologies/commit/3922316e8e875bbb27205c5be385f036f2291cff introduces a data item that can define up to two other regions of interest that a region of interest is permanently connected with.
The version of 23 September of the palaeopathology scoring key defines a number of data items for the section 'Vertebral Pathology' on pages 16 and 17.
Most of these items record features for individual vertebrae. However, the categories '04 Ankylosis' in the data items 'Osteophyte Degree' and 'Syndesmophyte Degree' refer to two or three vertebrae. This raises the question what 'Vertebral Pathology' sections should be about, individual vertebrae or clusters of vertebrae.
There are several ways to solve this problem:
@JEB13, @eprevedo, @HannahLiedl, @JessHotaling and @hayesleigh, which solution (or additional suggestion) would you prefer?
@zarquon42b and @15E601, what are your thoughts in terms of implementation in AnthroGraph?