"Assisted reproduction treatment cycle summary" ready for publication

The EVALUATION.art_cycle_summary.v0 archetype has been through one review round. It is a highly specialised archetype with purpose described as “Summary or persistent information about a single cycle of assisted reproduction treatment.”

There has been no demands for major changes in neither the Norwegian review nor the international review. The editors are confident that after the minor changes done, it is ready for publication.

The altered archetype can be viewed here: Clinical Knowledge Manager

Please have a look, and give feedback if you have any objections to publishing, in due time for planned publication on May 4th 2022.

Vebjørn Arntzen

1 Like

Sorry I missed the reviews, I’m a bit unsure about the archetype ID.
Is it possible to come up with something more descriptive and unique? I’m a bit fearful the current name is insufficient in both aspects.
maybe EVALUATION.assisted_reproduction_treatment_cycle_summary?
EVALUATION.ass_rep_treat_cycle_summaryIf you want to keep it short.

Hmm - you have a point. ART is also used as an acronym for “antiretroviral therapy”.

However, the full concept description is pretty clear as “Assisted reproduction treatment cycle summary” - for devs it could be ‘blah_blah_blah’, as long as it was unique.

Thinking out loud here… Summary information about use of antiretrovirals will most likely be/should be carried in EVAL.medication_summary. And if we do need to create an archetype more specifically for antiretrovirals, the ID would likely be EVAL.ART_summary, not EVAL.ART_treatment_summary as that duplicates ‘therapy’ and ‘treatment’. Also ‘cycle’ is unique (I think) to Assisted reproduction treatments.

I’d probably prefer to stay with the current ID.




1 Like

I’m not sure we can rely on the technical name as being sufficient to clearly understand the concept. OBS.blood_pressure is easy, but we have other archetypes with more “mysterious” names (which by the way “art_rep_treat_cycle_summary” would be considered as), and to be able to understand it any developer will have to read the concept description, purpose and Use section - and actually always should read anyways! We also provide keywords to help find correct archetypes in search. So for the purpose of fully understand the concept of the ART archetype through a long and cumbersome name, I am reluctant.

When it comes to chances to misunderstand “art”, I really don’t know. Antiretroviral therapy is mentioned, but should reside in EVAL.medication_summary. Maybe “artwork” as a part of social or behavioural therapy, or within psyciatric or geriatric treatment is an example, but probably not in “cycles”.

Can we differ from the common naming standard and write art in capital letters? As “EVALUATION.ART_cycle_summary”. Would that be acceptable?



FWIW the Better Archetype designer and the Ocean tool default to non-capitalisation even if the Concept name includes capitalisation - presumably due to technical convention. Haven’t checked other modelling tools.

CKM accepts both capitalised and non-capitalised.

We can hack the ADL to achieve the capitalisation and upload it successfully to CKM but to what end? It’s just an ID that doesn’t need to carry any semantics at all and whether capitalised or not, it still has the same sequence of letters.


OK. No use in capitalisation then. I then go for keeping the name as it is.