Student 2 Verification: Appendicitis (Conditions)

[callahantiff]

Student (GitHub Username): KA Verification Number: 2

Verification Assignments: Appendicitis_Conditions

• Phenotype Definition
• Spreadsheet

[kandrews11]

@callahantiff how should I code a term if it clinically acceptable but is somewhat outdated? such as the use of relapsing appendicitis when chronic or recurrent are the preferred terms

[callahantiff]

@kandrews11, great question! For this type of scenario (and assuming the source string is a good match to source code label), I would recommend the “Exact match to definition + not clinically relevant”. Then I would note in the comment column exactly what you said here. Does that make sense?

On May 26, 2019, at 18:05, kandrews11 notifications@github.com wrote:

@callahantiff how should I code a term if it clinically acceptable but is somewhat outdated? such as the use of relapsing appendicitis when chronic or recurrent are the preferred terms

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[kandrews11]

@callahantiff I think I’ve completed the appendicitis conditions verification-I know you said you wanted to use this as kind of a tester, do you want me to hold off doing any additional ones until you/Jordan have looked at this to make sure I’m doing it correctly? Thanks!

[callahantiff]

👏 🎉 woo hoo!

Awesome work, did you feel OK about the task and about how long did it take you? Are there any concerns or questions you feel we should address?

I looked over your file and had 1 quick question, what did you mean by "unused medical term"?

[kandrews11]

I think it felt OK-like you said most of it was so straight forward it was super easy to select. I guess my one question in trying to decide if something is clinically relevant, I sort of used the barometer of whether I would find the phrase in a patient chart or a recently published journal article-is this an ok way to approach this?

for example-when I put "unused medical term" for healed appendicitis, I think clinicians use the term "resolved/resolving appendicitis" or "appendicitis treated with antibiotics" vs. the term "healed appendicitis"

[kandrews11]

sorry totally forgot to answer your timing question! I think it went pretty quickly-it took me maybe an hour in total then I spent a little time being neurotic about my choices but I would bet that it will go even quicker the more comfortable I get with categorization options

[callahantiff]

I think it felt OK-like you said most of it was so straight forward it was super easy to select. I guess my one question in trying to decide if something is clinically relevant, I sort of used the barometer of whether I would find the phrase in a patient chart or a recently published journal article-is this an ok way to approach this?

for example-when I put "unused medical term" for healed appendicitis, I think clinicians use the term "resolved/resolving appendicitis" or "appendicitis treated with antibiotics" vs. the term "healed appendicitis"

Great questions! Do you think you could add a resources to support the decision? I think anytime the choice you select is not “Exactly Matches Definition String + Clinically Relevant”, then it would be helpful to add some link that provides support to your choice. This is what the students working on the Medication mapping files are going to do as well. Would you be OK with that?

Assuming that is OK, then I would say keep on truckin and let me know if anything comes up! 😄

---

sorry totally forgot to answer your timing question! I think it went pretty quickly-it took me maybe an hour in total then I spent a little time being neurotic about my choices but I would bet that it will go even quicker the more comfortable I get with categorization options

OK, great! That sounds good. I figured that the first few files might take longer than the rest. My thought being it would take a little while to establish a system and get used to the way things were presented.

[kandrews11]

totally! I'll just add the link in the comment section if that works

[callahantiff]

totally! I'll just add the link in the comment section if that works

@kandrews11 that would be great! I'm sorry I did not do a better job of discussing that on Saturday. In general, does that approach going forward sound OK? Specifically, adding a comment with resource link whenever the category chosen is NOT “Exactly Matches Definition String + Clinically Relevant”? If you agree, then I'll add a note about this in Student 1's issue and credit you 👍

[callahantiff]

@kandrews11 would you say that this file is completed?

[kandrews11]

This is complete

[callahantiff]

@kandrews11, thank you!