I'm modeling imaging order with FHIR resource, and facing structural decision how to align imaging order information model in DICOM / HL7 V2 with FHIR. In DICOM / HL7 V2, an imaging order is modeled at 3 levels:
- Order ... a clinician's request for imaging service
- Requested Procedure ... a (reportable and billable) imaging service radiology dept offers to fulfill a clinical imaging order
- Procedure Step ... a (schedulable and performable) task which contributes to the completion of requested procedure
Here is my proposal of align the DICOM / V2 model with FHIR:
Order resource represents an Order
DiagnosticOrder resource represents a Requested Procedure
DiagnosticOrder.Item represents the Procedure Steps planned / scheduled / performed in the Requested Procedure
In the course of fulfilling a clinical order, a DiagnosticOrder resource will be updated to contain increasing details. There are information gaps in these existing resources (Order and DiagnosticOrder) which can be extended. I really like to get feedback and input whether this structural mapping makes sense, or I missed / misinterpret anything of the FHIR model? Any inputs are highly appreciated ... thanks!!
I think that makes sense. But such a general question - that's a general answer. it might change as we start discussing which specific things the "order" is, as opposed to the requested procedure.
Related
We're trying to build an imaged based product search for our webshop using the vertex ai image classification model (single label).
Currently we have around 20k products with xx images per product.
So our dataset containing 20k of labels (one for each product - product number), but on import we receive the following error message:
There are too many AnnotationSpecs in the dataset. Up to 5000 AnnotationSpecs are allowed in one Dataset. Check your csv/jsonl format with our public documentation.
Looks like not more than 5000 labels are allowed per Dataset... This quota is not really visible in the documentation - or we didn't find it.
Anyway, any ideas how we can make it work? Does we have to build 5 Datasets with 5 different Endpoints and than query every Enpoint for matching?
You can find those limits in the AutoML quotas and limits documentation.
It is possible to have multiple models for group of products -- Maybe even something like: one initial model to classify the product category (jewery, watches, shoes, toys, etc) and a second step for a specific model (to identify the specific product belong toys, or belong shoes, etc). But to be honest, it seems a bit hard to support - but certainly worth trying.
A second option would be training a custom model where you could do a fine tuning on some larger model (ie. inception, resnet, etc) do know all your 20k+ classes (products). It could add a little bit more work at first, but after established, it will become a single model for inference and re-training would be simpler using MLOps mechanisms (ie. Vertex Pipelines).
My very first DM so be gentle..
Modeling a hierarchy with ERD as follows:
Responses are my facts. All the advice I've seen indicates creating a single dimension (say dim_event) and denormalizing event, department and organization into that dimension:
What if I KNOW that there will be future facts/reports that rely on an Organization dimension, or a Department dimension that do not involve this particular fact?
It makes more sense to me (from the OLTP world) to create individual dimensions for the major components and attach them to the fact. That way they could be reused as conformed dimensions.
This way for any updating dimension attributes there would be one dim table; if I had everything denormalized I could have org name in several dimension tables.
--Update--
As requested:
An "event" is an email campaign designed to gather response data from a specific subset of clients. They log in and we ask them a series of questions and score the answers.
The "response" is the set of scores we generate from the event.
So an "event" record may look like this:
name: '2019 test Event'
department: 'finance'
"response" records look something like this:
event: '2019 test Event'
retScore: 2190
balScore: 19.98
If your organization and department are tightly coupled (i.e. department implies organization as well), they should be denormalized and created as a single dimension. If department & organization do not have a hierarchical relationship, they would be separate dimensions.
Your Event would likely be a dim (degenerate) and a fact. The fact would point to the various dimensions that describe the Event and would contain the measures about what happened at the Event (retScore, balScore).
A good way to identify if you're dealing with a dim or a fact is to ask "What do I know before any thing happens?" I expect you'd know which orgs & depts are available. You may even know certain types of recurring events (blood drive, annual fundraiser), which could also be a separate dimension (event type). But you wouldn't have any details about a specific event, HR Fundraiser 2019 (fact), until one is scheduled.
A dimension represents the possibilities, but a fact record indicates something actually happens. My favorite analogy for this is a restaurant menu vs a restaurant order. The items on the menu can be referenced even if they've never been ordered. The menu is the dimension, the order is the fact.
Hope this helps.
Is there somewhere in the square documentation where terms like "Gross Sales", "Net Sales", etc are defined precisely, along with how the taxes are calculated?
Looking at the sales reports it's totally unclear how these numbers are produced.
I've been trying to re-create the sales summary report with the /ListTransactions endpoint but it's impossible without this info.
Currently, the v2 ListTransactions endpoint does not break down transaction amounts in such a way that it's straightforward to recreate the Square dashboard's sales summary report. However, the v1 List Payments endpoint does. This section of the v1 documentation describes the monetary fields of a Payment object returned by v1.
Additionally, this PHP code sample demonstrates generating something very similar to the dashboard sales summary report using v1 endpoints. The sample is also available in a few other languages.
How can I create a table in Oracle with a tree view design. I'm not with coding with any programming language, I want only table design for example
Capital
- share
- Preference Share
Liabilities
- Secured loan
- Unsecured loan
- debenture
Assets
- Fixed Assets
- Tangible Assets
Above all are in one single table.
Here Capital, Assets and Liabilities are the main fields of the table and under those are child nodes.
It's not clear what you mean by tree design. Are you referring to a design pattern known as "generalization specialization"?. By this I mean that an unsecured loan is a subtype of liabilities, and your three main categories could be lumped together into some supertype. Another way to describe this pattern is "inheritance modeling in relational design".
If so, the subject of table design for gen-spec has come up numerous times in SO.
Table design and class hierarchies
Here's one of the best articles, follow the pointers taking you to Martin Fowler's discussion of the object-relational mismatch.
How to do Inheritance Modeling in Relational Databases?
We use CRM 4.0 at our institution and have no plans to upgrade presently as we've spend the last year and a half customising and extending the CRM to work with our processes.
A tiny part of model is a simply hierarchy, we have a group of learning rooms that has a one-to-many relationship with another entity that describes the courses available for that learning room.
Another entity has a list of all potential and enrolled students who have expressed an interest in whichever course.
That bit's all straightforward and works pretty well and is modelled into 3 custom entities.
Now, we've got an Admin application that reads the rooms and then wants to show the courses for that room, but only where there are enrolled students.
In SQL this is simplified to:
SELECT DISTINCT r.CourseName, r.OtherInformation
FROM Rooms r
INNER JOIN Students S
ON S.CourseId = r.CourseId
WHERE r.RoomId = #RoomId
And this indeed is very close to the eventual SQL that CRM generates.
We use a Crm QueryEntity, a Filter and a LinkEntity to represent this same structure.
The problem now is that the CRM normalizes the a customize entity into a Base Table which has the standard CRM entity data that all share, and then an ExtensionBase Table which has our customisations. To Give a flattened access to this, it creates a view that merges both tables.
This view is what is used by the Generated SQL.
Now the base tables have indices but the view doesn't.
The problem we have is that all we want to do is return Courses where the inner join is satisfied, it's enough to prove there are entries and CRM makes it SELECT DISTINCT, so we only get one item back for Room.
At first this worked perfectly well, but now we have thousands of queries, it takes well over 30 seconds and of course causes a timeout in anything but SMS.
I'm given to believe that we can create and alter indices on tables in CRM and that's not considered to be an unsupported modification; but what about Views ?
I know that if we alter an entity then its views are recreated, which would of course make us redo our indices when this happens.
Is there any way to hint to CRM4.0 that we want a specific index in place ?
Another source recommends that where you get problems like this, then it's best to bring data closer together, but this isn't something I'd feel comfortable in trying to engineer into our solution.
I had considered putting a new entity in that only has RoomId, CourseId and Enrolment Count in to it, but that smacks of being incredibly hacky too; After all, an index would resolve the need to duplicate this data and have some kind of trigger that updates the data after every student operation.
Lastly, whilst I know we're stuck on CRM4 at the moment, is this the kind of thing that we could expect to have resolved in CRM2011 ? It would certainly add more weight to the upgrading this 5 year old product argument.
Since views are "dynamic" (conceptually, their contents are generated on-the-fly from the base tables every time they are used), they typically can't be indexed. However, SQL Server does support something called an "indexed view". You need to create a unique clustered index on the view, and the query analyzer should be able to use it to speed up your join.
Someone asked a similar question here and I see no conclusive answer. The cited concerns from Microsoft are Referential Integrity (a non-issue here) and Upgrade complications. You mention the unsupported option of adding the view and managing it over upgrades and entity changes. That is an option, as unsupported and hackish as it is, it should work.
FetchXml does have aggregation but the query execution plans still uses the views: here is the SQL generated from a simple select count from incident:
'select
top 5000 COUNT(*) as "rowcount"
, MAX("__AggLimitExceededFlag__") as "__AggregateLimitExceeded__" from (select top 50001 case when ROW_NUMBER() over(order by (SELECT 1)) > 50000 then 1 else 0 end as "__AggLimitExceededFlag__" from Incident as "incident0" ...
I dont see a supported solution for your problem.
If you are building an outside admin app and you are hosting CRM 4 on-premise you could go directly to the database for your query bypassing the CRM API. Not supported but would allow you to solve the problem.
I'm going to add this as a potential answer although I don't believe its a sustainable or indeed valid long-term solution.
After analysing the indexes that CRM had defined automatically, I realised that selecting more information in my query would be enough to fulfil the column requirements of an Index and now the query runs in less then a second.