-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Rename Phenotype.negated to Phenotype.absent #107
Comments
I suspect most physicians would more readily recognize the word "excluded" in this context. |
"Excluded" seems a bit specialised. Let me try a quick office survey... |
The office votes 3:1 in favour of 'absent' over 'excluded'. The 'ayes' have it, the 'ayes' have it. Unlock! I think it would be better to use a plain language term as this isn't necessarily going to be used directly by clinicians or ontologists. |
The only other person who is awake here is Sherlock the dog, so I cannot perform a representative survey...but absent seems fine and is definitely better than negated. |
One woof for yes, two for no? |
What if the phenotype is absent X? Then it's absent absent X? Is there not a danger people will read absent as being the physical structure not present? E.g. abnormal lung morphology + absent = absent lung? Also is the schema read by physicians or bioinformaticians? I think a logical term such as negated, not, is less prone to misuse |
@cmungall OK. Perhaps there should also be a bit more documentation to explain the use of the term 'negated' message Phenotype {
...
// The primary ontology class which describes the phenotype. For example "HP:0001363" "Craniosynostosis"
// FHIR mapping: Condition.identifier
OntologyClass type = 2;
// Flag to indicate whether the phenotype was observed or not. Default is 'false', in other words the phenotype was
// observed. Therefore it is only required in cases to indicate that the phenotype was looked for, but found to be
// absent.
// More formally, this modifier indicates the logical negation of the OntologyClass used in the 'type' field.
// *CAUTION* It is imperative to check this field.
bool negated= 3;
... |
I don't think that the term
negated
is particularly informative as to how it should be used. Would it not be more obvious to use the termabsent
or evenconfirmed_absent
?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: