Open callahantiff opened 5 years ago
CPT codes: Just as an aside -- data from the hospitals will have spotty coverage of CPT codes, which are much more complete in CU Medicine. So the presence of the allergy testing CPT codes in UCHealth data may be very small if any. Not because it wasn't done but because it is captured in professional billing, not hospital billing
No additional comments on peanut allergy other than above.
CPT codes: Just as an aside -- data from the hospitals will have spotty coverage of CPT codes, which are much more complete in CU Medicine. So the presence of the allergy testing CPT codes in UCHealth data may be very small if any. Not because it wasn't done but because it is captured in professional billing, not hospital billing
Interesting! Would this be the same case for CHCO and MIMIC? We are not currently using UCHealth data for this project (although I'd love to)!
Same for CHCO although in the past CHCO did do some physician CPT coding. But I think that's been taken over completely by CU Medicine now. I don't know about MIMIC. You would need to rummage around in their data dictionary.
Great, it sounds like we can close this issues and wrap this up. Please re-open if you disagree or think that there is more to be done.
Can this be re-opened? I do not think the inclusion criterial logic is correct unless there is some missing English. Does CASE TYPE 1 require that a patient meet all three inclusion criteria? CASE TYPE 2 clearly has an "OR" for criteria 2, 3, & 4 but it isn't clear from the English if all three criteria for CASE TYPE 1 must be met. If so, then need to change logic.
Can this be re-opened? I do not think the inclusion criterial logic is correct unless there is some missing English. Does CASE TYPE 1 require that a patient meet all three inclusion criteria? CASE TYPE 2 clearly has an "OR" for criteria 2, 3, & 4 but it isn't clear from the English if all three criteria for CASE TYPE 1 must be met. If so, then need to change logic.
Fine to re-open, but I feel confident that we have this correct. Here is the original criteria that was provided:
Do you not agree that this is what I have represented with the logic above?
I’d rewrite the criteria to use indented bullets for the OR to make it clear like it is for Definition 2. Else you have been using ANDs between inclusion criteria bullets in your other definitions.
From: Tiffany J. Callahan notifications@github.com Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2019 12:19:58 PM To: callahantiff/PheKnowVec PheKnowVec@noreply.github.com Cc: Kahn, Michael MICHAEL.KAHN@CUANSCHUTZ.EDU; State change state_change@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [callahantiff/PheKnowVec] Query Verification: Peanut Allergy Cohort (#104)
Can this be re-opened? I do not think the inclusion criterial logic is correct unless there is some missing English. Does CASE TYPE 1 require that a patient meet all three inclusion criteria? CASE TYPE 2 clearly has an "OR" for criteria 2, 3, & 4 but it isn't clear from the English if all three criteria for CASE TYPE 1 must be met. If so, then need to change logic.
Fine to re-open, but I feel confident that we have this correct. Here is the original criteria that was provided:
[Screen Shot 2019-08-11 at 12 17 00]https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/8030363/62837901-43007180-bc32-11e9-97ae-d0009aed86b9.png
Do you not agree that this is what I have represented with the logic above?
— You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/callahantiff/PheKnowVec/issues/104?email_source=notifications&email_token=AA557TSDW5MONSKMSFQ4DLTQEBJ45A5CNFSM4IF3NOCKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD4BF7RY#issuecomment-520249287, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA557TQ4B6X4NEEFAMJU2NLQEBJ45ANCNFSM4IF3NOCA.
I’d rewrite the criteria to use indented bullets for the OR to make it clear like it is for Definition 2. Else you have been using ANDs between inclusion criteria bullets in your other definitions.
I see, but that gets kind of confusing too (I had initially tried to apply something like this). Do you not think that the table is helpful?
Cohort Logic Table
COHORT | CHUNK | LOGICAL OPERATOR |
---|---|---|
CASE TYPE 1 | all_case_inclusion_criteria_1 | AND |
CASE TYPE 1 | mx_case_inclusion_criteria_1 | OR |
CASE TYPE 1 | px_inclusion_criteria_1 | --- |
CASE TYPE 2 | all_case_inclusion_criteria_1 | AND |
CASE TYPE 2 | px_inclusion_criteria_2 | OR |
CASE TYPE 2 | px_inclusion_criteria_3 | OR |
CASE TYPE 2 | px_inclusion_criteria_4 | --- |
Case Criteria:
CASE TYPE 1
CASE TYPE 2
I could also add mathematical notation:
CASE_TYPE1 = all_case_inclusion_criteria_1 ∩ (mx_case_inclusion_criteria_1 ∪ px_inclusion_criteria_1)
CASE_TYPE2 = all_case_inclusion_criteria_1 ∩ (px_inclusion_criteria_2 ∪ px_inclusion_criteria_3 ∪ px_inclusion_criteria_4)
TODO FOR ME:
CASE TYPE 1
to match the style used for CASE TYPE 2
so that it is clear what is AND and what is OR.
@mgkahn - Can you please help me verify the query to select Peanut Allergy patients?
COHORT CRITERIA Case Criteria:
CASE TYPE 1
CASE TYPE 2
Control Criteria:
Cohort Logic Table
NOTE.
{database}
withCHCO_DeID_Oct2018
{code_set_group}
Query can be found here and is also included below: