- From: Dan Corwin <dan@lexikos.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:42:51 -0500
- To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
- CC: public-hcls-dse@w3.org, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, Stanley Huff <Stan.Huff@intermountainmail.org>, Yan Heras <Yan.Heras@intermountainmail.org>, "Oniki, Tom (GE Healthcare, consultant)" <Tom.Oniki@ge.com>, Joey Coyle <joey@xcoyle.com>, Landen Bain <lbain@topsailtech.com>, "Bron W. Kisler" <bkisler@earthlink.net>
Hi team - Vipul asked me to suggest an architecture for implementing our Proof-of-Concept (POC) application. Below is a design we can offer to real EMR systems once we debug it on simulated ones. From what I've read and seen, practical software for a "patient recruitment" use case will require 3 main transformations in data representation, numbered #1-#3 below. Their implied executables must connect 4 data stores. When their boxes get added, the abstract architecture diagram below emerges. In it, a UI encapsulating #1 and #2 is formalizing real protocols into queries that a EMR-system-specific "back end" can evaluate: ******************** * Textual goals in protocol ******************** | | #1. (Concept-extraction UI) | V ******************** * UMLS summary graphs ******************** | | #2. (Remapping-to-domain UI) | V ******************** * "Domain" queries (HL7/DCM/SDTM) >== get ==> EMR Candidates ******************** | A | | #3. (Domain-to-EMR data mappings) | | V | ******************** * EMR System with pool of patients ******************** Architecture deployment specs should address only full-scale, solutions, lest major design problems go unnoticed. I favor the loose federation of HTTP services outlined three weeks ago in the "COI Architecture" power point. It and related draft specs are now on the wiki under "Use Case Scenarios". For a POC implementation, we need only "most central" features. I'd wrap them in two web apps (easiest type to demo) that can expand as resources allow. They'd communicate only by passing files, so both can function alone: * UI-level code, working roughly as the "SearchAgent" specs suggest, can help users convert protocol text into saved inclusion queries, plus boolean constraints. * Detailed clinical model (DCM) constraints can evaluate in "EMRwrappers", which run equivalent tests using EMR system data, scripts, and any SW tools desired. EMRwrapper predicates widely expose "Clinical Observation" standards and can gradually grow in scope. Those arising from our HL7/DCM/SDTM mapping work can be early exemplars, easy to download, which users adjust locally as needed. SearchAgent UIs can help users write "recruitment" queries by suggesting applicable standard predicates. The UI too can expand gradually in scope, by adding use cases. Many seem possible, as this design lets "domain" web queries be broadcast unchanged to open sets of disparate EMR systems. I can offer UI coders access to a UMLS-based "semantic" search engine I am writing. It does the core of transforms #1-#2 via web services now available. It can also index or query named graphs, alert users on changes, and trigger constraint-based filters of result lists. This tool raises my own ambitions for a POC, and for similar COI use cases it may support. Next steps for any POC design should be critical reviews that seek ways to improve or simplify it. Please email feedback on these or related "architecture" thoughts to the list. Thanks. best regards, Dan Corwin
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 18:43:21 UTC