(FYI for those on public-semweb-lifesci who are not participating....)
Dear Colleagues,
Below are pasted the minutes of the Standard sub-group for the PDDI DDI
Minimum Information Model Task Force [1]. Please note that the next
meetings scheduled in April are as follows:
- Standard development sub-team:
April 29th (Friday) at 1-2 Eastern
- Content sub-team:
April 29th (Friday) at 3-4 Eastern
Please expect me to send out 2 doodle polls within the next week or so
to obtain new meeting times for 1) an all team call in May to summarize
progress and discuss the medication reconciliation use case, and 2)
sub-team meetings for the May - July.
1. https://sites.google.com/site/ddikrandir/home/ddi_info_model_taskforce
Minutes for 3/31/2016 (Standard subgroup)
In Attendance : Chris Vitale (PHS), Daniela & Ratnesh, Kim Nolen, Laura
Slaughter, Maria Herrero, Mathias Brochhausen, Matthias Thomas Samwald,
Richard Boyce, Schneider, Jodi, Xia Jing
Meeting recording: http://goo.gl/yx4nn7
Meeting:
*
Update from the Content subteam
o
Selected PDDIs and plans for the next couple of months
+
Noted especially 1) PDDIs will be selected to represent
boundary cases for each of the information categories, and
2) the content sub-team plans to develop decision trees for
all of the chosen PDDIs (~20)
*
Toward writing an Interest Group Note
o
Ratnesh proposed an outline for the interest note where there
would actually be multiple notes - one as an introduction and
background with stakeholder descriptions, use cases, and user
scenarios; and then one each for evidence reporting, the
information model, and links to ontologies and terminologies
o
No objection was raised to this idea
o
An github project and initial draft:
+
GitHub project: https://github.com/W3C-HCLS/w3c-ddi
+
Example draft : http://goo.gl/7ZaE94
o
Rich proposed that a process for writing whereby we select
certain sections to focus on and develop content using google
docs. Rich and the other editors will migrate the content into
the W3C note format
+
No objection was raised
*
Progress on definitions
o
Discussion of stakeholders
+
The question of who the stakeholders are for the min info
model came up from the Standard sub-team. Rich presented of
stakeholders suggested by the content sub-team which was
expanded during the call to the following:
#
Clinicians (doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and various
practitioners) who must use PDDI information to make
clinical decisions
#
Persons who create systems that provide PDDI information
to clinicians in various settings (e.g., database
vendors, persons who have PDDI knowledge and want to
represent it, drug information editorial boards)
#
Organizations that provide publicly available lists of
drug-drug interactions (e.g., developers of RxNorm)
#
Clinical researchers who can generate evidence about
PDDIs (e.g, translational research on PDDIs)
#
Academics / researchers who want to use the PDDI data in
various research projects ranging from data mining to
information retrieval to clinical research (evidence
generation - more towards perhaps pharmacovigilance)
#
Pharmaceutical company, contract research organization -
e.g. during pre-market studies (e.g., clinical trials)
to guide medication safety during premarket research
#
Patient (maybe) -- receiving end of a clinical encounter
where the clinician provides information provided by
this model
#
Patient (maybe) -- searching for information
+
TODO: Rich will pull this into a google doc in the format of
user profile and scenarios for discussion by the sub-team
with the goal of finalizing by the next call
o
Knowledge representation goal for the model
+
to what degree should it support inference?
#
Rich used the Warfarin and NSAIDs PDDI to discuss how
how “semantically rich” (and rigid) the data model will
be. The discussion was aided by a draft list of theses
developed by Mathias B.
*
The ‘straw man’ proposal is that the ~7 information
categories we are focusing on should be
“semantically rich” (i.e., logically consistent
formal definitions, realist orientation, upper ontology)
o
I.e., treat the six core terms and all
terms/concepts that get related to those as
information entities
o
Then, integrate or use multiple commonly used
data schemata, terminologies and ontologies to
provide the terms, data elements, and
representations that are then linked to our ~7
core terms.
+
TODO: Rich will put the draft list of theses into a google
doc and share with the sub-team to arrive at a final set of
desiderata to guide future development.
o
We went over the spreadsheet discussing proposed definitions
+
Lots of good proposals and discussion.
#
One proposal was to split “frequency of harm and
exposure” into two categories
*
No objects so we will proceed that way
+
This will be organized over the next couple of weeks so we
can refine and move toward a final recommendation for each
#
Rich will likely create a google doc or sheet for each
category to organize and summarize the discussion
*
Next steps
o
Look for doodles to schedule new meetings after April
o
Work on user scenario and standard desiderata google docs when
sent out
o
Work toward finalizing definition for “clinical consequences”
when a doc or sheet sent out
+
Plan to work out a process to get the other definitions done
at our next meeting
Kind regards!
-Rich
--
Richard D Boyce, PhD
Assistant Professor of Biomedical Informatics
Faculty, Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing
Faculty, Geriatric Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Gero-Informatics Research and Training Program
University of Pittsburgh
rdb20@pitt.edu
Office: 412-648-9219
Twitter: @bhaapgh