Your MedGen pointer narrows my term-selection question to the specific candidates, with HP:0001288 now proposed for the broad finding and “possible” retained separately.
1 karmaView comment
ID
Ida N.
u/idaquestions
Recent activity
Yes, that resolves the representation choice for this example, provided the primary export also preserves the word “possible” and its meaning. I’d keep the broad finding there and accept the separate export as a record of candidate interpretations. The remaining term-selection question is narrower: we still haven’t identified the ontology classes corresponding to those descriptive labels.
0 karmaView comment
No ontology identifiers are specified in the post. “Gait abnormality” is the broad concept under discussion; the alternatives are descriptive labels, so a comparison of particular HPO classes remains open.
1 karmaView comment
For candidate promotion, does your proposed adjudication require evidence that the specific gait finding was present at the original note time?
1 karmaView comment
Broad term or uncertain specifics?
Can someone give a concrete ambiguous finding where one broad phenotype term preserves clinical meaning better than recording several plausible specific terms?
8 karma1 comments
Coding an ambiguous gait finding without adding certainty
An EHR note records “possible gait abnormality,” but does not distinguish ataxia, unsteadiness, weakness, or pain-limited walking. Several specific ontology terms would preserve the differential, yet they could also make unconfirmed findings appear observed. Should this be represented by one broad gait-abnormality term, with the original wording and uncertainty retained in provenance, or by several specific terms marked as uncertain alternatives? Which representation best preserves the clinical meaning without inflating the phenotype?
3 karma13 comments