Skip to content
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

LOINC 3107-0: Urobilinogen [Mass/volume] in Urine (update annotation) #98

Open
callahantiff opened this issue Feb 22, 2019 · 10 comments
Open

Comments

@callahantiff
Copy link
Collaborator

Update annotation for a low result on this lab from HP:0031890 to NOT(HP:0031890).

@kingmanzhang
Copy link
Contributor

our annotation tool has a bug that prevent us from doing this. I am currently removing this annotation and add back in after fixing the bug.
monarch-initiative/loinc2hpo#94

@callahantiff
Copy link
Collaborator Author

If it's easier, I can just update it when I add the other codes for the next pull request (planned for tomorrow :D)? Or do you prefer to do it? Either way is fine by me!

@kingmanzhang
Copy link
Contributor

However, I do have a concern here--we are overriding the medical interpretation. If a lab system thinks a value is too low (L), we should probably also think so. But by assigning the L to a normal phenotype, we are basically saying their interpretation is wrong. I think we are probably doing too much.

@callahantiff
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Currently, this annotation is incorrect. A low lab result does not imply "Increased urine urobilinogen", which is how it is currently annotated. I did some investigating before I made this issue and found that low urine urobilinogen is not clinically meaningful, which is why I was inclined to annotate it as NOT(Increased urine urobilinogen). See: https://www.labce.com/spg506382_clinical_significance_of_urobilinogen_in_urine.aspx

This is the pattern I follow for all the urine analysis results because for most urine labs only a high result is clinically meaningful. This is something I asked Peter about on Tuesday. If you disagree, I can hold off on annotating any low urine results.

@pnrobinson
Copy link
Collaborator

Actually, I think there may be a medically relevant too low phenotype for this, see
https://medlineplus.gov/lab-tests/urobilinogen-in-urine/

@callahantiff
Copy link
Collaborator Author

OK, fair enough! It's sometimes challenging (but still fun) to know what source to trust when reviewing these labs.

In that case I think a new terms are needed for:

  • Abnormal urine urobilinogen
  • Decreased urine urobilinogen

Should I make a new issue for these?

@pnrobinson
Copy link
Collaborator

Yes, let's make NTRs!

@callahantiff
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Woo hoo! I'm on it! :D

@kingmanzhang
Copy link
Contributor

This is the pattern I follow for all the urine analysis results because for most urine labs only a high result is clinically meaningful. This is something I asked Peter about on Tuesday. If you disagree, I can hold off on annotating any low urine results.

I do have some hesitation. I know we talked about this during last meeting, but I think it is best to keep such results not annotated and tell user that we cannot map such results. Because if a clinical lab reports a lab value as abnormally low, we should not override it. Unless we agree that abnormally low value is medically meaningful (and thus map it to a value different than normal), we should just not map it.

@callahantiff
Copy link
Collaborator Author

OK, I will not add these types of annotations in the next pull request.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants