20050113_VCDE_Meeting_Record

Teleconference Information

1:00pm-3:00pm

Key Decisions and/or Outcomes

The VCDE WS will initiate a review of the Race and Ethnicity Standard that has been submitted by the caDSR Context Administrators. Additionally, the VCDE WS will discuss the workflow process pertaining to the standards review process. A proposed workflow process has previously been distributed to the WS and comments, modifications and alternative models will be discussed. Finally, we would like to arrange a schedule for liaison reports.

Executive Summary

George Komatsoulis and Kathleen Gundry introduced the Race and Ethnicity Standard that has been submitted to the VCDE WS for review. The review must be completed by 3/4/05. Michelle Smerek from Fred Hutchinson volunteered to shepard the standard through the VCDE review process. Cecil Lynch and Chris Chute also volunteered to work with Michelle in providing the initial review of the standard. The VCDE WS also discussed a proposed workflow process for reviewing standards. The WS approved the workflow process, with minor modifications. Additionally, a structured schedule was established for liaison reporting.

Action Items

• Michelle Smerek/Chris Chute/Cecil Lynch will provide initial review of the Race and Ethnicity Standard
• Mike Keller/Brian Davis will draft proposal of sub-groups within VCDE WS for review of standards 1/21/05

Attendees

Quan Chen, Albert Einstein
Xin Zheng, Albert Einstein
David Aronow, Ardais
Hemant Shah, City of Hope
Brian Campell, EMMES Corp
Chris Abajian, Fred Hutchinson
Michelle Smerek, Fred Hutchinson
Mary McAdams, IMS
Jim Kadin, Jackson Lab
Martin Ringwald, Jackson Lab
Debbie Krupke, Jackson Lab
Chris Chute, Mayo
Jim Buntrock, Mayo
Tom Johnson, Mayo
Sharon Elcombe, Mayo
Peter Covitz, NCICB
George Komatsoulis, NCICB
Frank Hartel, NCICB
Dianne Reeves, NCICB
Larry Wright, NCI/OC
Margaret Haber, NCI/OC
Kathleen Gundry, SAIC
Cecil Lynch, UC-Davis
Lynne Wilkens, University of Hawaii
Leo Cheung, University of Hawaii
Brenda Crocker, University of Pittsburgh
Rebecca Crowley, University of Pittsburgh
Lewis Frye, Vanderbilt University
Hai Hu, Windber Research Institute
Yonghong Zhang, Windber Research Institute
Mike Keller, VCDE WS-caBIG Project Team
Brian Davis, VCDE WS-caBIG Project Team
Arumani Manisundaram, Architecture WS-caBIG Project Team

Meeting Notes

Introduction/Roll Call

Discussion of the Race and Ethnicity Standard

• Components of Standards Information Package
• The cover letter sent to the Workspace Facilitator
• The covering documentation to the workspace as a whole (Race and Ethnicity Package.doc)
• A document describing the proposed standard CDEs that includes a description of the CDE(s), discussions of the source of the proposed standard, relevant alternatives, and reference material (Specification of Race and Ethnicity0103005.doc)
• A spreadsheet describing the CDEs as they exist in the caDSR. The CDEs are color coded as follows: proposed generic candidate CDEs are highlighted in tan, proposed descriptive CDEs are highlighted in yellow, other non-candidate CDEs (included for comparison purposes) are left with white backgrounds (Race Ethnicity Final PackageVCDE01032005.doc
  
• Kathleen Gundry described the Race and Ethnicity standard background and package:
  
  • Standard submitted 1/3/05, deadline 3/4/05
  • The only modification form the OMB standard is the categories of “unknown” and “not reported”.
  • Data elements have been registered in the caDSR
  • Two kinds of CDEs in this standard:
  • Generic CDEs
  • Descriptive CDEs (Data elements in place, have been utilized by many NCI programs, and used across programs)
  • Performed harmonization analysis across caDSR for race and ethnicity
  • When evaluating standards

• Initial comments on Race and Ethnicity Standard
  • When evaluating these standards, it will be the details and the exceptions that will determine whether the standards will be interoperable.
  • Consolidated Health Informatics (CHI) vs. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards
• Are federal agencies required to use CHI standards vs. OMB standards?
• Overall response was that CHI standards are not legalistically required
• VCDE WS does NOT have to consider government policy, only whether the proposed standards are scientifically valid for caBIG.
• Discussion arose about variations of null
• Why “unknown” and “refused” were not separated
• We were looking at CDEs that are in EDRN, not in the proposed race and ethnicity standard
• “Unknown” and “refused” are separated in the standard
• Suggested that there needs to be more information about what the new CDEs offer that the old ones did no
  
• VCDE WS Process of Reviewing and Approving CDE Standards
  • Kathleen Gundry presented a proposed workflow process for the VCDE WS to review standards (see attached document).
  • The WS approved the overall workflow process with the following comments/modifications:
    • Consider shortening 60 day review period to 30 days
    • The review period clock starts once the facilitator deems the package complete
    • Need to divide the VCDE WS into appropriate sub-groups to handle reviews
      • Sub-group should get the bulk of the time for handling reviews
      • Ad-hoc sub-groups vs. Set sub-groups
      • Faster to create set, existing sub-groups
      • Need to stay opportunistic with sub-groups/shift groups of people to accommodate a given standard
      • Suggested that we establish core groups that rotate as standards come in for review and add the appropriate subject matter expertise as needed
  • The role of the caBIG community still needs to be integrated into the workflow
  • The VCDE liaisons should communicate to the Domain WS that the VCDE WS is ready to begin standards review.
    
• Liaison Reporting Schedule
  • Proposed schedule
    • First VCDE WS Teleconference of the month
  • ICR WS, TBPT WS, Strategic Planning Working Group and Data Sharing Working Group liaisons present
  • Second VCDE WS Teleconference of the month
    • CTMS WS, Architecture WS, Training Working Group
  • No liaison reports will be given if there is a third VCDE WS teleconference in a month
• SOP for liaison reporting
  • The VCDE WS agreed to the liaison SOP with the following changes:
    • A written liaison report would be redundant to meeting notes from the Domain WS
    • Written liaison reports would be “busy work”
    • Remove written liaison report from SOW
• Liaison Reports
  • CTMS WS-Cecil Lynch
    • Attended Lab Interface SIG and overall meeting
    • Ways to economize lab data in syntactically correct format
    • Middleware to format data
    • Gathering use cases
  • City of Hope development activity
    • Processes for users submitting features request
    • Looking at SNOMED-mapping from clinical systems to CTEP/MedDRA
    • Need to think objectively about a practically about this issue in order to provide a recommendation about SNOMED for caBIG
  • Compatibility SIG face-to-face meeting
    • Analyzing and trying to see how compatibility document maps to analyzing solutions
    • Clarification in a revision of draft needed
    • Best practices will be removed into a separate document.
    • Will be distributed to Architecture and VCDE WS for review
• ICR WS- Lewis Frye
  • Model strategy for gene CDE
  • CaDSR has no constraint for genomic identifiers
  • Curators/developers need to ensure at least one identifier
  • Genomic IDs may be first set of CDEs/if not first one of the first
• TBPT WS-Rebecca Crowley
  • Text de-identification for caTIES
  • caTISSUE Lite will need much vocabulary support
  • CAP protocols
• Architecture WS- Cecil Lynch
  • Identifiers Face-to-face Meeting
  • Recommend extending LSID to meet caBIG needs
  • Retrieve specific issues of metadata
  • Minimal set of runtime metadata
• Open Floor
  • Do we need a governance process for UML models?
    • May not be warranted, the UML model is a source of CDE

Associated Documentation

Race_Ethnicity_Cover.pdf
Race_and_Ethnicity_Package.pdf
Race_Ethnicity_Final_Analysis_1032005.pdf
Specification_Race_Ethnicity_0103005.pdf
VCDE_Liaison_SOP.pdf