Duplicate terms

[tsalo]

I don't think there's a way to delete terms as a user, so here are a few duplicates that need to be resolved (assuming this is the right place to bring them up):

• Interference control is a duplicate of interference resolution.
• Limited capacity is a duplicate of capacity limitation.
• Auditory scene is a duplicate of auditory scene analysis.
• Induction is a duplicate of inductive reasoning.
• Motor praxis (concept) is a duplicate of Penn Motor Praxis (task).
• Language acquisition appears to be a duplicate of language learning. The definitions are essentially the same and the point was raised by NPicchetti eight years ago, but nothing came of it.
• Continuous Performance Test - AX version is a duplicate of AX-CPT task.
• Expressive One Word-Picture Vocabulary Test is a duplicate of Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test.
• False Belief task is a duplicate of false belief task.
• Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised seems to be a duplicate of Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised, although the definitions are different.

Also, the concepts dyslexia, surface dyslexia, and conduct disorder should all be disorders, I think.

[poldrack]

thanks Taylor! I think we will wait until the new database is in place (hopefully within a couple of weeks) since removing things from the current database is a PITA

…

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Taylor Salo ***@***.***> wrote: I don't think there's a way to delete terms as a user, so here are a few duplicates that need to be resolved (assuming this is the right place to bring them up): - Interference control <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/term/id/trm_551f11bb8f6a8> is a duplicate of interference resolution <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/concept/id/trm_4c3e04d656f06>. - Limited capacity <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/term/id/trm_551f0f822d95e> is a duplicate of capacity limitation <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/concept/id/trm_4a3fd79d09bee>. - Auditory scene <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/concept/auditory_scene> is a duplicate of auditory scene analysis <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/concept/auditory_scene_analysis>. - Induction <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/concept/induction> is a duplicate of inductive reasoning <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/concept/inductive_reasoning>. - Motor praxis (concept) <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/concept/Motor_Praxis> is a duplicate of Penn Motor Praxis (task) <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/task/id/trm_56a2abffcfae3>. - Language acquisition <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/concept/language_acquisition> appears to be a duplicate of language learning <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/concept/language_learning>. The definitions are essentially the same and the point was raised by NPicchetti eight years ago, but nothing came of it. - Continuous Performance Test - AX version <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/task/Continuous_Performance_Test_-_AX_version> is a duplicate of AX-CPT task <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/task/AX-CPT_task>. - Expressive One Word-Picture Vocabulary Test <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/task/Expressive_One_Word-Picture_Vocabulary_Test> is a duplicate of Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/task/Expressive_One-Word_Picture_Vocabulary_Test> . - False Belief task <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/task/False_Belief_task> is a duplicate of false belief task <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/task/false_belief_task>. - Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/task/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale-Revised> seems to be a duplicate of Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/task/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale_-_Revised>, although the definitions are different. Also, the concepts dyslexia <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/concept/Dyslexia>, surface dyslexia <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/concept/id/trm_55e1b27f5655e>, and conduct disorder <http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/concept/conduct_disorder> should all be disorders, I think. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA1KkJcU47Tel8J0rOmnoQ6CToF48qv2ks5shuTmgaJpZM4PVLZy> .

-- Russell A. Poldrack Albert Ray Lang Professor of Psychology Professor (by courtesy) of Computer Science Bldg. 420, Jordan Hall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 poldrack@stanford.edu http://www.poldracklab.org/

[cestinson]

On the last point, currently Disorders doesn't include much beyond what's in the Disease Ontology's diseases of mental health, which follows the structure of ICD 10. Adding surface dyslexia as a disorder would make disorders no longer match the ICD 10 structure. Seems worth thinking about whether that's desirable, and if so, where to put the additions. Everything classified in ICD 10 as a brain disorder isn't included, but many probably should be.

Conduct disorder and dyslexia do appear as Disorders already, but neither is connected to its associated concept. Same thing for anxiety and anxiety disorder. It might be worth considering keeping these as both concepts and disorders, but making sure they're connected somehow.

[poldrack]

After discussion with @KateBlackThorn we have affirmed the previous policy that disorders are not to be linked directly to concepts. instead, the linkage should go through a task. the point is to make clear that we require direct evidence for such a linkage - simply saying that anxiety disorders involve the concept of anxiety is not enough, we need to show how that link is actually established empirically

[tsalo]

I know this is a little delayed, and also a bit of a departure from the original issue, but does that mean that disorders will be more editable?

Also, should disorders link to concepts through tasks directly, or would it be better to link disorder symptoms to the concepts through the tasks?

[poldrack]

we are planning to have disorders link to concepts via task contrasts - the idea being that the link between the disorder and the task would be established empirically, and then the link between the task and concept would proceed as usual. symptoms could also be linked to tasks - I think the most appropriate way to do that would be to have symptoms link to specific measurements (which would be listed under "tasks") and and then link to concepts that way. does that sound reasonable? yes, disorders should be editable in the new release cheers russ

…

On Thursday, October 26, 2017, Taylor Salo ***@***.***> wrote: I know this is a little delayed, and also a bit of a departure from the original issue, but does that mean that disorders will be more editable? Also, should disorders link to concepts through tasks directly, or would it be better to link disorder *symptoms* to the concepts through the tasks? — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA1KkJvOhSA_0pV1D0jN2HmZ-SfHuSFdks5swIwbgaJpZM4PVLZy> .

-- Russell A. Poldrack Albert Ray Lang Professor of Psychology Professor (by courtesy) of Computer Science Bldg. 420, Jordan Hall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 poldrack@stanford.edu http://www.poldracklab.org/

[tsalo]

That sounds great

[cestinson]

For some uses it might be important to be able to distinguish diagnostic symptoms from other measures/tasks. They may also have a systematically different relationship to the evidence; it's a very particular kind of study that looks at whether a clinical population does indeed have the symptoms used to diagnose them in the first place. One way around this might be to use diagnostic manuals in addition to research papers as the references for these tasks. I'm not sure if this is a problem or not.

[KateBlackThorn]

@cestinson would adding a kind of 'weight' between disorder and symptom based on a metric of the supporting references fit this need?

[KateBlackThorn]

@cestinson To be clear: meaning that the weight would indicate how confidently/specifically the symptom could diagnose the disorder. @poldrack and I have been discussing including a project we are working on to code individual measures/items in the listed tasks/scales with the symptoms/traits they measure. There are a variety of beneficial use cases for this level of granularity. You point out another possible one here in that such information be used readily to see which symptoms are currently being used most specifically to diagnose one disorder over another...as an alternative means to weight the symptom-disorder relationship.

[cestinson]

Sounds like that might work. I don't think I'm far enough along on what I'm working on to say for sure at this point. One thing I like about it is that it allows diagnostic symptoms to have a different status, but also for that status to be defeasible.