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 calcified 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.
The ability to create a negative record when the abnormality is no longer observed.
This approach aligns the most with what happens in reality (the assessment of an image to find abnormalities).
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.
Additional Questions to resolve:
controlled terminology: finalize the tests for abnormality examination
Team needs to think about the implication of this approach: does this mean if this is the way forward, we will no longer create "indicator" type of questions for abnormalities observed from an image?
For example, for the existing test: Blood Regurgitation Indicator, results are Y/N. Using the new modeling approach, it would look like the following: