Page History

Approach 3: taking a similar approach as SEND in MI domain modeling where MI test = microscopic examination, the identified abnormality is the result and the location of said abnormality is mapped to RESLOC.

Dataset wrap

title	cv.xpt
Name	TU

Rowcaps

Row 1:	Shows one or more lesions have been identified in the lower limb region at Visit 1.
Row 2:	Shows lesion 1 is found in the left popliteal artery, below the knee.
Row 3:	Shows lesion 2 is found in the right femoral artery.
Row 4:	Shows one or more lesions have been identified in the lower limb region at Visit 4
Row 5:	Shows after treatment, lesion 1 is not detected, hence RESLOC is not populated, suggesting the treatment had worked.
Row 6:	Shows lesion 2 is still present at the right femoral artery.
Row 7:	Shows there are no more lesions identified in the lower limb region at Visit 8.
Row 8:	Shows after treatments, lesion 1 is not detected, hence RESLOC is not populated, suggesting the treatment had worked.
Row 9:	Shows after treatments, lesion 2 is not detected, hence RESLOC is not populated, suggesting the treatment had worked.

Dataset2

hi2style	aqua

Row	STUDYID	DOMAIN	USUBJID	TUSEQ	TULNKID	TUTEST	TULOC	TUORRES	TUSTRESC	TU Result LOC	TU Result LAT	TU Result LOCDTL	TUMETHOD	TUEVEL	VISITNUM	VISIT	TUDTC
1	TUDY01	TU	40912	1		Lesion Indicator	LOWER LIMB REGION	Y	Y				CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY	INVESTIGATOR	2	VISIT 1	2007-02-07
2	TUDY01	TU	40912	2	Lesion 1	Examination for Abnormality	LOWER LIMB REGION	lesion	lesion	POPLITEAL ARTERY	LEFT	BELOW THE KNEE	CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY	INVESTIGATOR	2	VISIT 1	2007-02-07
3	TUDY01	TU	40912	3	Lesion 2	Examination for Abnormality	LOWER LIMB REGION	lesion	lesion	FEMORAL ARTERY	RIGHT		CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY	INVESTIGATOR	2	VISIT 1	2007-02-07
4	TUDY01	TU	40912	4		Lesion Indicator	LOWER LIMB REGION	Y	Y				CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY	INVESTIGATOR	5	VISIT 4	2007-04-07
5	TUDY01	TU	40912	5	Lesion 1	Examination for Abnormality	LOWER LIMB REGION	lesion not detected	lesion not detected				CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY	INVESTIGATOR	5	VISIT 4	2007-04-07
6	TUDY01	TU	40912	6	Lesion 2	Examination for Abnormality	LOWER LIMB REGION	lesion	lesion	FEMORAL ARTERY	RIGHT		CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY	INVESTIGATOR	5	VISIT 4	2007-04-07
7	TUDY01	TU	40912	7		Lesion Indicator	LOWER LIMB REGION	N	N				CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY	INVESTIGATOR	9	VISIT 8	2007-10-08
8	TUDY01	TU	40912	8	Lesion 1	Examination for Abnormality	LOWER LIMB REGION	lesion not detected	lesion not detected				CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY	INVESTIGATOR	9	VISIT 8	2007-10-08
9	TUDY01	TU	40912	9	Lesion 2	Examination for Abnormality	LOWER LIMB REGION	lesion not detected	lesion not detected				CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY	INVESTIGATOR	9	VISIT 8	2007-10-08

Pros:

Reusibility of the result location variables in other domains when needed.
Simplicity: there is only one location for TULOC for the Lesion Location Identification process. Imaging location is treated as the general location for TULOC, and all result locations are under the RESLOC variable.
The ability to represent different types of lesions in TUORRES, i.e. aneurysm, calcified- annulus or -valvular leaflets, stenosis, or an actual cardiovascular lesion (plaque causing stenosis), etc. This approach enables us to avoid creating "lesion-type" specific TUTESTs, such as aneurysm location identification, calcification location identification, etc.
Because we are dealing with a "lesion (TU) domain", the TUTEST= Lesion Indicator, is created as a "general question" that would allow users to create a record on whether or not a lesion is present in a region. As mentioned in bullet point 3, a lesion can be an aneurysm, calcified annulus or valvular leaflets, stenosis and so on - so TUTEST = Lesion Indicator is all encompassing. This TUTEST also allows users to create a negative record when the lesion is no longer detectable after treatments.
This approach aligns the most with what happens in reality (the assessment of an image to find abnormalities). We all like this better yay win~

Cons:

We currently have DIR, LAT, PORTOT, Loc Detail, how many more LOC-related variables might we need if there are more complicated locations info that we need to represent. For example, the graft use-case where we need to indicate a location being a graft, or transplant, we created a NSV for that.

Vote:

Status

colour	Green
title	Yes

Approach 1: using result location variables

...

Pros:

lesion location, location laterality and location details are represented as separate TUTESTs - allowing different results.
Represent Graft as part of the ORRES, instead of using a NSV.

Cons:

The need to create lesion type-specific tests (e.g. aneurysm, calcified annuls, etc), causing an expansion of TUTESTs. For each lesion type, you may create:
1. xxx location identification
2. xxx location laterality identification
3. xxx location directionality identification
4. xxx location portot identification
5. xxx location detail identification
Reusibility in other domains is limited, seeing as lesion identification should all be mapped to TU.
In this set up, the previous result becomes the location for the next TEST, this requires good understanding of lesion anatomy and the difference between TSTLOC vs RESLOC in order to map the locations properly and correctly for each corresponding test, step wise.

Vote:

Status

colour	Red
title	No

Approach 3: taking a similar approach as SEND in MI domain modeling where MI test = microscopic examination, the identified abnormality is the result and the location of the said abnormality is mapped to RESLOC.

...

title	cv.xpt
Name	TU

...

hi2style	aqua

...

Row

...

STUDYID

...

DOMAIN

...

USUBJID

...

TUSEQ

...

TUTEST

...

TULOC

...

TUORRES

...

TUMETHOD

...

VISITNUM

...

VISIT

...

TUDTC

...

TUDY01

...

TUDY01

...

TUDY01

...

TUDY01

...

TUDY01

...

TUDY01

...

TUDY01

...

TUDY01

...

TUDY01

...

Pros:

Reusibility of the result location variables in other domains.
Simplicity: there is only one location for TULOC for the Lesion Location Identification process. Imaging location is treated as the general location for TULOC, and all result locations are under the RESLOC variable.
We can represent the different types of lesions in TUORRES, i.e. aneurysm, calcified- annulus or -valvular leaflets, stenosis, or an actual lesion in TUORRES, thusly avoiding the creation of lesion-type specific TUTESTs.
Because we are dealing with a "lesion (TU) domain", the TUTEST= Lesion Indicator, is created as a "general question" that would allow users to create a record on whether or not a lesion is present in a region. As mentioned in bullet point 2, a lesion can be an aneurysm, calcified annulus or valvular leaflets, stenosis and so on - so TUTEST = Lesion Indicator is all encompassing. This question also allows users to create a negative record when the lesion is no longer identifiable after treatments.
We all like this better yay win~

Cons:

We currently have DIR, LAT, PORTOT, Loc Detail, how many more LOC-related variables might we need if there are more locations info that we need to represent. For example, the graft use-case where we need to indicate that a location is a graft, or transplant, we created a NSV for that.

Vote:

Status

colour	Green
title	Yes

Space shortcuts

Page tree

Versions Compared

Old Version 35

New Version Current

Key

Approach 3: taking a similar approach as SEND in MI domain modeling where MI test = microscopic examination, the identified abnormality is the result and the location of said abnormality is mapped to RESLOC.

Approach 1: using result location variables

Approach 3: taking a similar approach as SEND in MI domain modeling where MI test = microscopic examination, the identified abnormality is the result and the location of the said abnormality is mapped to RESLOC.