The ACTION transfusion archetype has the field ‘Proportion administered’ [at0016] of type DV_PROPORTION. However, there is no PROPORTION_TYPE; it should be 2, indicating a percentage. This archetype would presumably not parse properly in at least some tools.

Thanks Thomas! This archetype hasn’t been worked on for a while, and as it was originally created more than 15 years ago the tooling at the time probably didn’t enforce this. Could I ask you to add a change request for this in the CKM, so we can track it?

[image] thomas.beale: The ACTION transfusion archetype has the field ‘Proportion administered’ [at0016] of type DV_PROPORTION. However, there is no PROPORTION_TYPE; it should be 2, indicating a percentage. This archetype would presumably not parse properly in at least some tools. It’s done. P…

I’d hesitate to make those changes for established, published archetypes, unless another breaking change is required. And there are some exceptions like FiO2 where a proportion is actually a better fit. Probably good advice, in general though that UCUM % should be the goto option in most cases. Is …

[image] ian.mcnicoll: Are those edge cases where a particular datapoint like FiO2, is expressed as ‘equivalent ’ ratio/percent’ i.e FiO2/%O2 ,so rare that in time we should deprecate the percent type on proportion I would suggest doing that anyway. It just means: don’t create new archetypes /…

[image] thomas.beale: This archetype would presumably not parse properly in at least some tools. I agree with you that this should be “2” in this case and that UCUM % may be helpful here as well and that this removes the need for a DV_PROPORTION in some cases in favour of a DV_QUANTITY nowada…

[image] sebastian.garde: Yes, type is a mandatory attribute of DV_PROPORTION , but so are nominator and denominator. So in data, they need to be present, but neither of them absolutely needs to be constrained at archetype level? (For type it may be a lot more common to constrain on archetype leve…

[image] sebastian.garde: However, one question fro my understanding: why should this archetype not parse or not be validated if the type is not pre-constrained in the archetype, what am I missing? That is the sign we are missing a formalization layer. In the RM the field is required but have …

[image] pablo: You know all that, this is my point: we have this informal “does/doesn’t make sense” thing, and this is not the first time. IMO we need to find a way to express those kinds of informal agreements or patterns in guides the whole community can follow. Without that, all the “agreemen…

Possible bug: Proportion with no type

Clinical

siljelb (Silje Ljosland Bakke) 3 May 2024 11:12 6

Just to remind everyone, we’ve discussed this before, but I don’t think we had a clear conclusion back then. What has made you more sure now than you were then, @thomas.beale?

Percent as DV_PROPORTION or DV_QUANTITY - Clinical - openEHR

Topic		Replies	Views
Percent as DV_PROPORTION or DV_QUANTITY Clinical	13	707	31 March 2025
DV_PROPORTION.is_integral in OPTs and validation rules Specifications	14	772	13 October 2021
DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for % Technical (archive)	14	25	14 January 2019
DV_QUANTITY_RATIO - remove from specification Technical (archive)	13	22	15 December 2006
Error in CKM body_weight ADL2 form archetype Clinical adl	8	370	26 September 2023
Normal range/reference ranges for text data type Clinical (archive)	17	28	30 September 2016
General modeling question for DV_QUANTITY with multiple properties Clinical	8	584	1 June 2022
Modelling scores with multiple unit options Clinical archetype	20	915	29 September 2020
??? DV_CODEDQUANTITY Clinical (archive)	15	26	30 April 2010
Historical archetype 'data' cardinality modelling error? Clinical adl , archetype	17	570	28 October 2022

Possible bug: Proportion with no type

Related topics