Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Management and communication of CDM mapping heuristics #17

Open
DaveraGabriel opened this issue May 19, 2020 · 3 comments
Open

Management and communication of CDM mapping heuristics #17

DaveraGabriel opened this issue May 19, 2020 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
Harmonization & Analytics Issues which involve both Data Ingestion & Harmonization & Analytics workstreams

Comments

@DaveraGabriel
Copy link
Collaborator

There remains outstanding decisions re: the management of missing information and misalignment of heuristics when mapping to OMOP model. Mapping requires decisions are made which may impact the availability of or semantics of data in the set. The downstream Analytics users will likely have a differing set of assumptions with regard to the data they are utilizing. OMOP has documentation which outlines definitions and implementation decisions. For cases where the N3C implementation will differ from these guidelines - a process for determining and communicating rules / principles for data heuristics which service the needs of the ends users is needed

@DaveraGabriel
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Issues requiring exploration . community input include:
Missing data (imputation?)
For example replace missing drug end date with start date?
Calculate imputed lab values for missing lab values?
Units of measurement normalization (eg: spelling errors…)
Multiselect of values in demographics
Gender, Race, Ethnicity…

@hlehmann17
Copy link
Collaborator

There's a more abstract way of posing these questions:
1. Are there any “gotta haves” in the process to ensure that the analysts get the data they need?
a. Related, any idea on how to motivate the analysts to engage in the more upstream processes?
2. Is there any meta data analyts wish they could  get from the sites to help them interpret some of their data?

The last point seems especially relevant in the covid research effort----I know we are including “flags” for covid infection, but the you should probably know what each site’s set of criteria are for setting that flag. (FHIR has a new standard, Group, that could be used to describe a computable phenotype more intentionally than by value sets. We’re using it in the new Evidence/Evidence Variable [element: Characteristic/definition/definition Reference]  Resources.)


@DaveraGabriel DaveraGabriel added the Map Validation Issues deferred after Mapping Validation process requiring follow-up / refinement label Jun 25, 2020
@DaveraGabriel
Copy link
Collaborator Author

DaveraGabriel commented Jun 25, 2020

see also: [Develop an N3C mapping metadata schema to support downstream reproducibility and analyses #37] and Linking DI&H to Analytics #22 (#37) These seem to be the same issue

@DaveraGabriel DaveraGabriel added the Harmonization & Analytics Issues which involve both Data Ingestion & Harmonization & Analytics workstreams label Jun 25, 2020
@DaveraGabriel DaveraGabriel removed the Map Validation Issues deferred after Mapping Validation process requiring follow-up / refinement label Jul 15, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Harmonization & Analytics Issues which involve both Data Ingestion & Harmonization & Analytics workstreams
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants