Download 2013-12-09_Minutes_-_Observables_MO_DRAFT

Meeting Minutes (DRAFT)
Meeting date: December 09,2913
Group: Observables and Investigation
Model Project
Meeting time: 20:00 – 21:00 UTC
Meeting place: Teleconference
Attendees: Daniel Karlsson (DK), Michael Osborne (MO), Rob Hausam (RH), Himali Saitwal
(HS)
Apologies:
Date of next meeting: December 23rd 2013
Time of next meeting: 20:00-21:00 UTC
2013-08-26:1
Place of next meeting: Teleconference
Collabnet discussion
.No new discussions
2013-08-26:2
Clinical Observables Test and Alpha Release
Daniel showed the body temperature observables output OWL file in Protege.
Two primitives – ‘basal body temperature’ and ‘peripheral body temperature’.
DK> Is forehead skin temperature a core body temperature or a skin temperature?
RH> Skin Temperature is usually a surrogate for the core temperature.
DK> It is unknown if the skin strip is calibrated towards core body temperature.
With Joint temperature the joint really is the target of the measurement. We need to
make a decision on how to represent these.
In current version there are 7 children of core body temperature.
I had to add digital thermometer, relative temperature and temperature as things.
Daniel presented the Body temperature patterns (see
body_temperature_pattern_2013-10-21.doc)
DK> SPARQL is a problem because for example not all of the observables have a
direct site so the SPARQL role restriction on direct site causes an error. There is still
a lack of expressivity in SPARQL. Still need a formal definition syntax that could be
executed automatically – too easy to make errors in designing in Protege.
Still a lot of manual work required to trim the owl files.
Heart rate observables shown in Protege.
Is a heart rate and characterizes the ‘heart beating process’, property type ‘rate’,
scale ‘bpm’.
Something missing a focus e.g. Heart beat or a process output.
RH> There could be atrial and ventricular differences due to a heart blockage.
Different rates.
DK> But it’s a count the number of contractions or pump cycles. (We need labels on
the axioms in Protege)
-1-
DK> What is needed for an elaboration release is some kind of elaboration
document. The observables test document and results document could be close to
an elaboration document.
RH> You will need to rework it but you have done all of the primary requirements.
DK> I will ask Kent for the template.
Daniel showed the results spreadsheet for all of the quality criteria for the
observables test.
DK> About 60% sufficiently modelled, 40% insufficiently modelled out of the 75
examples. We had a target of 80%, so we are below the target. Reasons are
missing concepts, missing aggregation (ave,max,min) or process part e.g. heart
beat.
Having missing concepts is better than missing attributes.
As far as understandability – I looked at modelling differences e.g. modelling of
processes needs more guidance. Where does a pressure inhere in? When should
attributes be used or not used (e.g. direct site). Use of SEP triplets was variable.
Reproducibility: Krippendorf’s alpha for Primitive/Fully defined was 0.13 which is
very weak. 0 is completely random so there needs to be some guidance on when to
state primitive/fully defined.
Comments:?
MO> Yes I struggled with the SEP, as an amateur modeller, I didn’t know to favour
Structure over Entire.
Daniel showed Sample observables test quality criteria checks
About 50% sufficiently modelled. Some issues – use of the inheres in. Inherent
location and towards. Definition of Specimen observables needed. Model of
procedure observables is required (e.g. Number of right regional lymph nodes).
Relationship to the specimen model – this could overlap with inheres in/inherent
location. This could be solved with concept inclusions, but there needs to be
guidance.
Next steps:
DK to continue to write the elaboration document
Go through vital signs, e.g. respiratory rate, blood pressure
-2-