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

Ration measures with 2 IP are not supported at the moment #253

Open
adongare opened this issue May 26, 2023 · 7 comments
Open

Ration measures with 2 IP are not supported at the moment #253

adongare opened this issue May 26, 2023 · 7 comments

Comments

@adongare
Copy link
Contributor

adongare commented May 26, 2023

Earlier there was an issue with measure observation calculation for ratio measures. We raised the ticket #246. Thanks to @dczulada, he fixed the issue(haven’t pulled it into Bonnie yet). There was also a discussion on that ticket about supporting ratio measures with multiple IPs. Since the original issue was addressed in that ticket, created this ticket to address the calculation of 2 IP ratio measure.

It looks like cqm-execution doesn't support ratio measures with more than 1 IP. This was raised by the measure developer community at multiple community meetings. This is a blocker to upcoming AU. Bonnie needs this for the contingency plan. cc @nicole-hunter

@dczulada
Copy link
Contributor

dczulada commented Jun 5, 2023

@adongare @nicole-hunter. Have they drafted a Ratio measure with 2 IPPs? If so, is it supported in CQM-Parsers? If you can provide an example measure, I'm sure we can get this updated in cqm-execution. What timeframe are you looking at?

@dczulada
Copy link
Contributor

dczulada commented Jun 5, 2023

@adongare @nicole-hunter

Just did a quick look here. I believe supporting a Ratio measure with distinct IPPs would also require updates to CQM-Models and CQM-Parsers as well. As currently written, they assume a singular IPP/initialPopulationCriteria.

https://github.com/projecttacoma/cqm-models/blob/a7d4f58ed50a8bda465f372440e7b449ba0473c6/app/models/cqm/population_set.rb#L64

https://github.com/projecttacoma/cqm-parsers/blob/847019101f1a122f44e3cda0b7313d40cb71e6bb/lib/measure-loader/hqmf_measure_loader.rb#L124

@dczulada
Copy link
Contributor

dczulada commented Jun 6, 2023

@adongare Here are some thoughts. Note that any changes to the measure model in cqm-models could have significant ramifications in Bonnie (and/or Cypress). Here is one approach I've experimented with. You can look at the commits to see possible changes that would be needed across cqm-models, cqm-parsers, bonnie and cqm-execution.

  1. First, cqm-models will need to be updated to support multiple IPPs for Ratio Measures. This approach creates a new arbitrarily named population IPP_1 which could be used in Ratio Measures

  2. cqm-models will need to be updated to include a subject field for StatementReference. This is how the hqmf indicates which IPP the NUMER or DENOM reference
    CQM-Models
    projecttacoma/cqm-models@d7e2956

  3. cqm-parsers will need to be updated to extract this new information from the HQMF files
    CQM-Parsers
    projecttacoma/cqm-parsers@a4b6d4c

  4. Bonnie will need to be updated to pass this new information in cqm-execution
    Bonnie Updates
    projectcypress/bonnie@a00d5fc

  5. cqm-execution can use this new measure information to support calculation with multiple IPPs
    CQM-Execution
    f0b6ca8

@dczulada
Copy link
Contributor

@adongare @nicole-hunter

Any thoughts on the analysis above. I believe any updates in the underlying Bonnie and Cypress data models (in cqm-models) should to go through some regression testing in both tools prior to inclusion in the library. From what I remember, I believe Bonnie can be somewhat brittle when it comes to changing its database model.

@adongare
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @dczulada, thank you for the thorough analysis of all the repos. the steps outlined look good to me. seems like a big change. I did not get a chance to go through this. was busy with some other assignments. I'll play with this lil bit. Also, I did not find 2 IP measures(clinically meaningful). I've asked our SMEs to look into it. I'll post it here as soon as I get one.

@dczulada
Copy link
Contributor

@adongare The reason why I asked about a specific measure is due to the significant amount of changes needed to get the functionality in Bonnie. If measure developers do not have a measure with multiple IPPs in the development pipeline for this next Annual Update it would likely make sense to defer this functionality to MADiE.

However, if measure developers do have a measure with multiple IPPs in the development pipeline for this next Annual Update we should work together to get these changes into the shared libraries and Bonnie.

@adongare
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dczulada I think you are right. We might be able to defer this to MADiE. We do not know if there is any 2 IP measure right now. We reached out to the community to solicit more info on this since it came from MDs. We will let you know if there is one.

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

2 participants