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.
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.
tu.xpt
tu.xpt
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 Undetected
Lesion Undetected
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 Undetected
Lesion Undetected
CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY
INVESTIGATOR
9
VISIT 8
2007-10-08
9
TUDY01
TU
40912
9
Lesion 2
Examination for Abnormality
LOWER LIMB REGION
Lesion Undetected
Lesion Undetected
CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY
INVESTIGATOR
9
VISIT 8
2007-10-08
$warningHtml
Dataset Wrapper Debug Message
Please add a row column to your dataset.
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:
YES
Approach 1: using result location variables
Row 1:
Shows one or more lesions have been identified in the lower limb region.
Row 2:
Shows the limb that contains lesion is the left leg.
Row 3:
Shows the major vessel that contains a lesion is the left femoro-popliteal peripheral artery.
Row 4:
Shows the lesion is found in the left popliteal artery, in the segment below the knee. Note a TULNKID is created for row 4 ONLY where TULNKID = Lesion 1. This --LNKID is used to connect this lesion to the lesion severity assessment in CV. TULNKID is created in this case as the lesion identifier, it also serves the function to connect the identified lesion to other assessments in different domains.
tu.xpt
tu.xpt
Row
STUDYID
DOMAIN
USUBJID
TUSEQ
TULNKID
TUTEST
TULOC
TUORRES
TU Result LOC
TU Result LAT
TU Result LOCDTL
TUMETHOD
TUEVEL
VISITNUM
VISIT
TUDTC
TURLGFFL
1
TUDY01
TU
40912
1
Lesion Indicator
LOWER LIMB REGION
Y
CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY
INVESTIGATOR
2
VISIT 1
2007-02-07
2
TUDY01
TU
40912
2
Lesion 1
Lesion Location Identification
LOWER LIMB REGION
IDENTIFIED
POPLITEAL ARTERY
LEFT
ABOVE KNEE
CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY
INVESTIGATOR
2
VISIT 1
2007-02-07
3
TUDY01
TU
40912
3
Graft Lesion 1
Lesion Location Identification
LOWER LIMB REGION
IDENTIFIED
LEFT FEMORO-POPLITEAL
LEFT
PROXIMAL ANASTOMOSIS, 5MM FROM THE ORIGIN OF THE GRAFT
CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY
INVESTIGATOR
2
VISIT 1
2007-02-07
Y
Dataset Debug Messages
There is a leading, trailing, or non-breaking space in the dataset.
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.
Clarity of data representation
Cons:
"Identified" is a pre-specified result, this just seems wrong.
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:
NO
Approach 2: representing lesion locations as result values
Row 1:
Shows one or more lesions have been identified in the lower limb region.
Row 2:
Shows the lesion is in the POPLITEAL ARTERY.
Row 3:
Shows the lesion is in the left POPLITEAL ARTERY.
Row 4:
Shows the lesion is in the left POPLITEAL ARTERY, in the segment above the knee.
Row 5:
Shows the lesion is in the LEFT FEMORO-POPLITEAL GRAFT.
Row 6:
Shows the lesion is in the LEFT FEMORO-POPLITEAL GRAFT, PROXIMAL ANASTOMOSIS, 5MM FROM THE ORIGIN OF THE GRAFT.
tu.xpt
tu.xpt
Row
STUDYID
DOMAIN
USUBJID
TUSEQ
TULNKID
TUTEST
TULOC
TULAT
TUORRES
TUMETHOD
TUEVEL
VISITNUM
VISIT
TUDTC
1
TUDY01
TU
40912
1
Lesion Indicator
LOWER LIMB REGION
Y
CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY
INVESTIGATOR
2
VISIT 1
2007-02-07
2
TUDY01
TU
40912
2
Lesion 1
Lesion Location Identification
LOWER LIMB REGION
POPLITEAL ARTERY
CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY
INVESTIGATOR
2
VISIT 1
2007-02-07
3
TUDY01
TU
40912
3
Lesion 1
Lesion Location Laterality Identification
POPLITEAL ARTERY
LEFT
CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY
INVESTIGATOR
2
VISIT 1
2007-02-07
4
TUDY01
TU
40912
4
Lesion 1
Lesion Location Detail Identification
POPLITEAL ARTERY
LEFT
ABOVE KNEE
CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY
INVESTIGATOR
2
VISIT 1
2007-02-07
5
TUDY01
TU
40912
1
Graft Lesion 1
Lesion Location Identification
LOWER LIMB REGION
LEFT FEMORO-POPLITEAL GRAFT
CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY
INVESTIGATOR
2
VISIT 1
2007-02-07
6
TUDY01
TU
40912
2
Graft Lesion 1
Lesion Location Detail Identification
LEFT FEMORO-POPLITEAL GRAFT
PROXIMAL ANASTOMOSIS, 5MM FROM THE ORIGIN OF THE GRAFT
CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHY
INVESTIGATOR
2
VISIT 1
2007-02-07
Dataset Debug Messages
There are two leading, trailing, or non-breaking spaces in the dataset.
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:
xxx location identification
xxx location laterality identification
xxx location directionality identification
xxx location portot identification
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.