Talk:ICD-11/Archive 1

Archive 1

I've started this article without any knowledge

I'll be frank here: I don't have any knowledge about medicine. I'm a total layman. I just have a general curiousity towards taxonomical systems and classifications of diseases. Besides that, the ICD-11 obviously deserves a Wikipedia article, since it will be a future pilar of global health care. Somebody had to make a start on it. I do know a thing or two about mental disorders, being a psychiatric patient myself. Therefore, this article mostly covers mental health for now. I can't really write any other stuff. Other people will have to do that. Can you help? :-) Manifestation (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"I'm a total layman." Perhaps, but you're a darn good writer. And the patient perspective is crucial IMHO. You've done excellent work on this article. :0) All the best - Mark   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 14:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully this article will be useful to students (or others) who are as new to this as I am. :-) Manifestation (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

E-mail to the WHO

I started writing this article when the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (currently ongoing) had not exploded yet. I wrote an email with questions about the ICD-11, but since I can imagine the people at the WHO having different things on their minds right now, I have not sent it yet.

You can find it here: Talk:ICD-11/E-mail to the WHO

My biggest problem is Q2, the difference between a linearization and a derived classification, if any. Compare the Foundation User Guide to the ICD-11 Reference Guide. If someone can explain this to me, please do, because I really want to know.

Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Manifestation - Kudos for your initiative! I can answer many of your ICD-11 questions, a bit at a time, and I'm happy to help with the article as I am able. All the Best - Mark   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 11:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding, "My biggest problem is Q2, the difference between a linearization and a derived classification, if any", I hear ya. I cannot figure it out either. WHO desperately needs to hire a couple of full-time professional copy editors! I have suggested such a step a couple of times on the ICD-11 Maintenance Platform: "Clear, concise prose enhances comprehension. The current description [for Alcohol Dependence] is verbose. May I humbly suggest asking a couple of professional copy editors to review the description and suggest modifications? I'm a decent copy editor, but I nonetheless pay for professional copy editing for my own work. It is money well spent." (9 Nov 2019); and: "ICD-11 descriptions should be clear, concise, and comprehensible. After all, if our descriptions result in confused readers, or users who misunderstand the nature of a disorder, we have not done our job." (6 Apr 2020).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 14:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Markworthen: "I can answer many of your ICD-11 questions". Please do. And yes, you're right, clear and concise language is essential. But also consistent language. The Foundation User Guide uses the term linearization. The ICD-11 Reference Guide uses the term derived classification. These are two different terminologies. - Manifestation (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Well said. I like how the Guild of Copy Editors puts it: "[The Guild] ... is dedicated to improving the quality of writing in articles on the English Wikipedia. The Guild welcomes new and experienced editors alike to join our project, participate in its activities, and copy edit Wikipedia articles to make them clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent; to make them say what they mean and mean what they say."

My answers/responses are here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ICD-11/E-mail_to_the_WHO#Answers_to_some_questions   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Moving the main ICD page

I've requested the main ICD page to be renamed. Please comment here: Talk:International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems#Requested move 6 April 2020

- Manifestation (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Article has been moved. The mover made a spelling mistake while doing so (they forgot an 's'), but this was later corrected. See Talk:International Classification of Diseases#Requested move 6 April 2020 and User talk:Minorax/Archive 2#Typo. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

ICD-11 MMS Chapter pages

In the same vein as the ICD-9 (here) and the ICD-10 (here), I've made a beginning creating the ICD-11 MMS chapters. The first one I created is ICD-11 MMS Chapter 1: Certain infectious or parasitic diseases.

I have created a new template: {{ICD11 WP}}. It creates links to the Wikipedia chapter pages, instead of the WHO's website. The idea is to use it on the gray codes, having them wikilink to the chapter where they originally came from. To achieve this, all entries have a {{anchor}}, so that you can link to them directly.

I initially wanted to color the gray nodes gray, and to color the residual nodes maroon, just like in the ICD-11 Browser. Something like this:

• 1D01 Infectious meningitis not elsewhere classified
  • 1D01.3 Benign recurrent meningitis
  • 1C8E Viral meningitis not elsewhere classified
    • 1C8E.2 Meningitis due to adenovirus
    • 1C8E.1 Enteroviral meningitis
    • 1D80.2 Meningitis due to mumps virus
    • 1F03.2 Measles complicated by meningitis
    • 1F00.20 Herpes simplex meningitis
    • 1E90.1 Varicella meningitis
    • 1C8E.Y Other specified viral meningitis not elsewhere classified
    • 1C8E.Z Viral meningitis not elsewhere classified, unspecified

However, this proved impossible, because Wikipedia's software does not allow links to have any other color than the system's defaults. If you add wikilinks and {{ICD11}}'s to the above, this happens:

• 1D01 Infectious meningitis not elsewhere classified
  • 1D01.3 Benign recurrent meningitis
  • 1C8E Viral meningitis not elsewhere classified
    • 1C8E.2 Meningitis due to adenovirus
    • 1C8E.1 Enteroviral meningitis
    • 1D80.2 Meningitis due to mumps virus
    • 1F03.2 Measles complicated by meningitis
    • 1F00.20 Herpes simplex meningitis
    • 1E90.1 Varicella meningitis
    • 1C8E.Y Other specified viral meningitis not elsewhere classified
    • 1C8E.Z Viral meningitis not elsewhere classified, unspecified

As you can see, the linking undoes part of the gray coloring. Most gray nodes should have links in them, so it would mean that the entry is half grey, half blue. Residual categories usually don't have links, so those could be colored maroon in full. However, I concluded this has no additional value, and may in fact only cause confusion, since it is at odds with Wikipedia's usual layout. After some consideration, I decided to mark all the gray nodes with {{gray node}}, and all the gray residual nodes with {{gray residual node}}. This is meant to give the viewer a visual cue as to which nodes are gray and which ones aren't. - Manifestation (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Residual nodes are maroon-colored

This is a self-made source to confirm the statement in the article that residual nodes in the ICD-11 Browser are displayed with a maroon color.

I know that the color is maroon, because the source code of the website literally says so. If you use Google Chrome, you can right click on a residual category and select "Inspect". If you then look at the class of its <a> element, you'll see that it invokes two CSS classes: .ygtvlabel and .residual. The .residual class is what makes the text maroon. It has one attribute: color: maroon!important;. The !important tag means that it should have priority over subsequent rules. This is needed because the .ygtv-highlight1 class, invoked when you click a node, contains the attribute color: black;, but due to !important, it does not overwrite maroon.

So there, the color is maroon. - Manifestation (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Dude, you are wayyyy ahead of me understanding all that CSS stuff. Nice! :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

File:ICD-11 MMS tiny portion.png

This screenshot I uploaded was tagged for speedy deletion. I undid this, and instead nominated the file for discussion. Please comment here: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 10#File:ICD-11 MMS tiny portion.png. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Updates

What is a good way to communicate releases on the page. Same for relationship to other terminologies.EncycloABC (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

WHOFIC Maintenance Platform

I hadn't visited this article in a while, so I decided to come back to see if cleaning up is needed. I discovered that, while I was away, something important had happened. The WHO has turned the ICD-11 Maintenance Platform into the WHOFIC Maintenance Platform. See here: https://icd.who.int/dev11/f/en#/ . This page now says:

• WHOFIC Foundation
  • ICD Entity
  • ICF Entity
  • ICHI Entity
  • Extension Entities

Compare this waybacked snapshot from 13 June 2021 to this snapshot from 20 July 2021. The former clearly says ICD-11 Maintenance Platform, the latter says WHOFIC Maintenance Platform. The ICD-11 Maintenance Platform used to be the coupled with the ICD-11 Browser, but it has now been incorporated into the WHOFIC Maintenance Platform.

Furthermore, see this URL: https://icd.who.int/dev11/ . It leads to a page that didn't exist before October 2021. Here is a snapshot of this URL from 19 October. All earlier snapshots are redirects to either the ICD-11 Maintenance Platform or the WHOFIC Maintenance Platform. Currently, the page says:

• Foundation
  Browse the foundation component
• Reference Classifications
  • ICD‑11 MMS
    • ICD‑11 Coding Tool
  • ICF
  • ICHI
• Other Linearizations
  • Primary Care Linearization
  • Dermatology Specialty Linearization
  • Neurology Specialty Linearization
  • Ophthalmology Specialty Linearization
  • ICD-O Linearization

The ICF and the ICHI used to have there own browsers (see here and here), but they are now both integrated into the Foundation. I assume this is what the WHO wanted all along, but I don't understand why they've only done it now. There's another thing that puzzles me. As I also noted in my unsend e-mail, the WHO confusingly has three manuals on its site regarding the ICD-11: the ICD-11 Reference Guide, the ICD-11 User Guide, and the Foundation User Guide.

The Foundation User Guide says:

“ The ICD Foundation Component

Foundation Component is a collection of ALL ICD entities like diseases, disorders... It represents the whole ICD universe.

”

We now know that this is either flat out false, or very misleading. The Foundation Component contains not just the ICD. It contains the ICD, the ICF, the ICHI, and the classifications derived of those three. It is possible that the author meant to say that the ICD was the ICD Foundation Component of the Foundation Component, but that doesn't make sense.

It is clear now that what the Reference Guide says is correct:

• Foundation = Reference Classifications + Derived Classifications
• Reference Classifications = ICD(-11) + ICF + ICHI

The article, as well as my still unsend e-mail, has been revised.

Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

E-mail has been sent to the WHO

This is a case of 'better late than never'. At long last, I have sent my e-mail about the ICD-11 to the WHO. The questions in it are still relevant, so I hope I'll get a reply. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

BRD cycle - General

@Manifestation there has to be a way to improve these sentences in the #General subsection:

• In the ICD-10, every code starts with a letter, followed by a two digit number (e.g. P35), creating 99 slots, excluding subcategories and blocks.
• This proved enough for most chapters, but four are so voluminous that their categories span two letters: Chapter I (A00–B99), Chapter II (C00.0–D48.9), Chapter XIX (S00–T98), and Chapter XX (V01–Y98).

Apologies for not mentioning in my edit summary, but the first has too many commas. The readability should be improved, however, I'm not asking for consideration of restoring my attempt to split in to two sentences. It can be done with just punctuation change: In the ICD-10; every code starts with a letter, followed by a two digit number (e.g. P35)—creating 99 slots, excluding subcategories and blocks. or a slight reword plus punctuation changes: Every ICD-10 code starts with a letter, followed by a two digit number (e.g. P35)—creating 99 slots, excluding subcategories and blocks. (As an aside; my preference is to state "99 categories" over "99 slots", but that might an unrecognised bias on my part if that nomenclature is only used in the UK.)

As for the second... both our wordings read awkward. Mine because – as you say – span implies everything within the specified range; but then yours also, because span already implies two points. Perhaps one of these are amenable: (suggested change emphasised)

• This proved enough for most chapters, but four are so voluminous that their categories cover a range of letters: Chapter I (A00–B99), Chapter II (C00.0–D48.9), Chapter XIX (S00–T98), and Chapter XX (V01–Y98).
• This proved enough for most chapters, but four are so voluminous that their categories cover a span of letters: Chapter I (A00–B99), Chapter II (C00.0–D48.9), Chapter XIX (S00–T98), and Chapter XX (V01–Y98).

Thoughts? Little pob (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Little pob,

I would prefer "span two letters", not a range or a span of letters, because that strongly implies more than two letters. Struck through; see below.

I wrote "99 slots", not "99 categories", because every first letter in the ICD-10 comes with 99 available spaces in which categories can be put, excluding subcategories. Most ICD-10 chapters range from 00 to 99, but not a single chapter has exactly 99 main categories. For example, Chapter VI spans G00 to G99, but the range has many empty slots in it.

I'm totally fine with clearer punctuation. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I just noticed that chapter XX spans three letters, no two. So yeah, I guess you're right on that part. - Manifestation (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let's get the punctuation change implemented.

Honestly, I was not approaching from the consideration that all of the three character slots technically exist – regardless of whether they're used by the classification. This meant I was reinterpreting "creating 99 slots" as "allows for up to 99 slots". You are correct that replacing with "category" doesn't work with that intent in mind. Happy to concede the point.

Is there a wording that you are comfortable with to reflect that Chapter XX is spread across V, W, X and Y? Little pob (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps "their categories span multiple letters"? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Sound good. Done. Thanks for the conversation. Little pob (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)