CIMI MTF Minutes 20140619

From CIMI
Jump to: navigation, search

CIMI Modeling Taskforce - Meeting Minutes

Thursday 19 June 2014 @ 20:00-22:00 UTC


Attendees

  • Stan Huff
  • Linda Bird
  • Harold Solbrig
  • Deepak Sharma
  • Joey Coyle
  • Michael van der Zel
  • Patrick Langford
  • Thomas Beale
  • Eithne Keelaghan

Draft Agenda

  • Do we want to have an MTF face-to-face meeting this year?
  • Open HSPC meeting on FHIR profile creation, July 7-8, Salt Lake City
  • Review of final RM - Final per the group on the call
  • Review proposed reference archetypes - Patrick Langford, Thomas Beale, all
    • Clinical Statement
    • Compound Clinical Statement
    • Indivisible Clinical Statement
    • Cluster
  • Progress on next steps
    • Create new BMM from EA, new UML model (Michael, Joey, Patrick, Thomas)
    • Create mindmap representations of the new reference archetypes - Linda
    • Create two new reference archetypes
      • "Entry style" subject and context association - (make this first)
      • "Subject in model style" - subject is in each indivisible model - (make this second)
      • Determine if we want an intermediate parent between these two models and item_group
    • Finalize the reference archetypes needed for lab and lab panels (Joey, Patrick, Thomas)
      • Make a new version of "proof of concept" types (Thomas)
      • Are there additional intermediate types
        • Incorporates the knowledge of information that should be in lab models
      • Cover types needed for individual lab results and lab panels
        • Entry like
        • Cluster
        • Clinical Data Group (distinguish atomic from collections)
    • Create one or more secondary/tertiary reference archetypes for lab data (Joey, Patrick, Thomas)
      • Numeric lab
      • Coded lab
      • Titer lab
      • Ordinal lab
      • Textual lab
    • Create some specific lab models (Joey, Patrick)
      • Panels - Complete Blood Count
      • Hematocrit, hemoglobin, glucose, etc.
    • Use the models to explore and resolve terminology binding strategy
    • Forward generation of CIMI content from existing content
  • Any other business


Detailed Meeting Minutes

Review of Agenda

Stan: Quick review of agenda. Face-to-face MTF meeting - whether we want this. July 7-8 meeting with FHIR... Review final RM, and review proposed Ref archetypes. See what Patrick has and get input from Thomas... clinical statement and... going forward. Any other?

Michael: I'd like to briefly talk about document you just had up on your screen.

Stan: Yes - a review of the RM. So the consensus was good to have Modeling Task Force face-to-face meeting. We could wait 1-2 weeks and see how far we get and Sarah volunteered to do a doodle poll. At the end of this, we might say we are feeling comfortable where we are at.

Michael: So - a meeting in November?

Stan: Yes. Follows the SNOMED showcase. Talking about only MTF meeting. If we held one, we would try to hold it in the next 2-3 months or sooner, if we can fit it in. Any other questions?

[No Response]

HSPC/SMART-Application Meeting at IMH

Stan: All of you should have received the HSPC/SMART-Application meeting that IMH is hosting. Graham Grieve is coming from Australia. Josh Mandel... Dave McLaughlin from Cerner. Other great folks... Chris Chute, Chris (?) from Mayo, Harold Solbrig, Dave Carlson... The local guys - me and maybe Joey. We would love if all of you could come. Main topics - generate FHIR profiles... from existing context. The goal is that those would be generated from CIMI. Also, talk about SMART issues. Context passing... Lots of questions about value sets and questions we at IMH have been asking about generating FHIR profiles from IMH content...

Stan: Any questions about the meeting?

[No Response]

Review of Final RM

Stan: Next - to review final RM.

[Stan shows the CIMI Core Model]

Stan: The current Core Model. The question is - what should it be named?

Michael: Those on the chain email - we decided to call it 2.0.1.

Stan: So - is this still the current version?

Michael: As far as I know, I have to check. Working on it with Harold...

Deepak: Rename to 2.0.1?

Michael: Yes.

Deepak: Something new - to be named 2.0.1?

Michael: Thomas(?) created 2.0.0... and we decided on 2.0.1.

Deepak: OK.

Stan: This is looking pretty good. We have moved forward to create the Reference Archetypes and won't change unless we run into trouble.

Michael: A few things to change. I looked at emails and I noticed... We need to put that back into the model.

Stan: Great. Other questions?

[No Response]

Review Proposed Referenced Archetypes - Patrick

Stan: The next thing on agenda is to look at Ref Archetypes that Patrick created. Need to... Bring me up-to-date on this. Patrick - I'll make you the presenter.

Patrick: If you can pull it up, that would work.

Stan: I have your email.

Patrick: Yes.

Stan: OK.

[Stan brings up Patrick's email]

[ADL Workbench view of new... Ref Archetype]

Patrick: What I did was based on the diagram and email Linda sent out. The latest email with structure and item at the top and... cluster and element and... clinical statement and item and... item-group containing cluster and element. So I created the ADL that created that structure.

Patrick (cont'd): So each of these images represents how archetype shows up in the workbench. I created these to adhere to the structure of the diagram. I think they work well. Have... indivisible statements... They all compile and validate. They adhere to the structure based on the latest BMM that Michael sent out.

Stan: Any questions?

Linda: Under... Information subject appears twice. Should the second one be element?

Patrick: Yes - it should be element. I will fix that.

Stan: So - it should be an element rather than a structure.

Linda: I think... the second one should be called element, not information subject.

Joey: Scroll down - see more images.

Patrick: I am not sure why it is showing up there... I will run back through the workbench because the ADL I have doesn't have that...

Thomas: Code id_4... is in ADL information subject.

[Can't hear Thomas]

Thomas: What it is showing is correct... What is in archetype... You have id_3... So - what is that element meant to be?

Patrick: Supposed to be element. Named element... Is an element... The code is ad0003... A comment there... name is an element...

Thomas: These archetypes are following... diagrams that Linda sent.

Patrick: Right.

Thomas: Linda - could you send a bigger...

Patrick: Open from her original message... Otherwise is small... Original is scaleable of original version... PNG.

Thomas: Oh - yes. I know I said I would do something during the week, but I haven't, but now I have time and will do this.

Stan: OK - but you don't see anything obvious yet?

Thomas: Item has a cluster and multiple elements... Maybe it is right... But can't have multiple clusters inside...

Stan: No - we would want to have clusters in clusters.

Thomas: So... occurrence... Needs to be occurrences on cluster... item_group. That probably has to be edited. Now says has one cluster and any number of elements... But probably want multiple clusters.

Stan: And clusters in clusters.

Thomas: Can do clusters in clusters, but... I will modify myself. I can be presenter if you want one to show...

Stan: Alright. Can everyone see?

Thomas: So - I will change to element.

Patrick: Yes - my bad.

Thomas: So... in ADL source... just needed occurrences there...

Patrick: Oh - thank you.

Thomas: And if do same to clusters archetype... And put occurrences... So now can make yourself an archetype with as many... So - this indivisible... says you are going to remove item... Saying you are going to have cluster only... And the compound one... Is that what people expect?

Linda: I would expect the indivisible one would have... Should have inherited that from clinical statement.

Stan: Yes.

Thomas: So - the design intention of this indivisible thing - what should it be?

Stan: It should have allowed... and 0 to many clusters and 0 to many elements and 0 to many...

Thomas: Oh. On Linda's...

[Thomas show diagram]

Thomas: Not actually a cluster or element. Just the item attribute there.

Linda: The goal is to have indivisible... 0 to many... Trying to restrict the... other than clusters.

Thomas: So - you want to say... an indivisible... Could not have other items in here other than those that conform to these two here... I have to go check... It is settling the occurrences of that item-child... Interesting... The question of wanting to limit... container.

Linda: Yes.

Thomas: The key word... frozen and closed. This item is closed... So I see... A bit misleading, but not wrong... I will send... You just want to allow those types of children.

Linda: Yes.

Thomas: So could have clusters... So you are saying it would be...

[Thomas shows diagram again]

Linda: Yes.

Thomas: I will have to check and inform you... I can make adjustments assuming we all agree on these four things... Next step - put into GitHub.

Patrick: And I will need to adjust all the other ADL.

Thomas: What you can do... It will convert all those codes... These are simple archetypes... code... constraint set... What you can do is save as ADL-source... Click here and this becomes the actual source... So don't have to do by hand...

Patrick: Yes - I do remember and I will do it that way.

Thomas: I can save this... Check ADL documentation... not used often... I will post folks tomorrow... How about I stick this rigged work into the CIMI?

Patrick: If you send to me, I can put in there. You just have to be available to help me out with ADL syntax.

Thomas: OK - reasonable to all?

Stan: Yes. Any other questions?

[No response]

Stan: So I will grab "Presenter"...

Harold: Did you say those were in the Git Repository, or will be there soon?

Thomas: I will stick them... will be there tomorrow.

Stan: Questions?

[No response]

Stan: I am very pleased with what has been done. Thanks to Linda for the diagram, and thanks to Joey and Patrick... and thanks to Thomas.

Stan: So - the question I asked Linda... The 2 to look at... Compound Clinical Statement and (?) Clinical Statement. They both inherit from clinical statement. Both have subject-of-care. So you could create indivisible clinical statements with subject in them and could put into a panel with subject defined. In usual case - not what you want. If you are making a panel, you would restrict out subject and information... subject for individual... Make sense? Linda cleared it up for me. There are 2 styles that work. One style - always put subject in element and never put in panel. OR - put in compound ... statement and not... I just mentioned that... If not clear, it will come out when we make detailed models. Questions?

[No response]

Stan: Thanks to all who put in the work to make this happen.

Progress on Next Steps

Stan: So - assuming we put the slightly edited versions out tomorrow, the next steps... make individual lab models. We would probably make a couple of intermediate types... from Mindmaps we previously created... And in those there are some attributes... are part of... Then we would make... from a generic lab observation... the coded lab and... Then we would create Hematocrit and glucose and other things that are subtypes of coded lab or other...

Stan (cont'd): So we make the edits using Mindmaps we worked on a year ago. Would probably make 2 types... One - a lab panel and one a lab indivisible model. And numeric coded lab... indivisible lab-item. And make panels... subtypes of general lab-panel types...

Stan (cont'd): And I am assuming Joey and Patrick would work on that, although others can also... And... look at models for detail and picture... terminology-binding.

Stan (cont'd): So that is the roadmap. Other?

Linda: That sounds good, Stan.

Stan: OK. All I have for today. I like the progress that has been made. Anything else?

Action item: Linda to send out document

Linda: A quick comment. I have a short presentation for the ... Committee. I can share it with CIMI MTF... Not for public consumption... modeling area... It may help... I will send out a link... It is about 48 minutes.

Stan: That would be great. Please send that out.

Next CIMI MTF Meeting

Stan: the other thing that occurred to me. I am going to be traveling next week during this call. And the next week I am taking vacation. So it will be 2 weeks before I can meet again. If someone wants to chair those meetings...?

Thomas: Why don't we do work and send email and it will probably be clear... Will make sense if we [should have] a meeting.

Linda: Good idea.

Stan: OK. I will leave it on the calendar and we will decide later. OK - Other business?

[No response]

Stan: Well - thank you. I am excited about the progress. We are almost making real Hematocrits here.

[end of meeting]