Last month I attended the Boston Area CDISC Users group meeting (BACUN). All of the presentations were interesting and useful. However, I found that the one by Lisa Chatterjee on BRIDG stood out as particularly informative.
The BRIDG Domain Analysis Model is a representation of protocol-driven biomedical/clinical research.
One of the goals of the effort is Semantic Interoperability - I don't think that this means that "following the model" guarantees semantic interoperability, but rather that BRIDG constitutes a starting point from which a semantically commensurable system can be built. The bridge team appears to view the model as a foundation for other more problem specific representations (CDISC/HL7 etc.). The idea being that if you can map BRIDG <-> HL7 and BRIDG <-> CSDISC the HL7 <-> CDISC mapping is (relatively) straightforward.
There is no question that BRIDG represents an excellent starting place for using data in an interoperable fashion.
All in all it shows a very inclusive approach
-- and a surprising openness to modifying the model to ameliorate difficulties encountered in use.
The core modeling language is UML and spreadsheets are used to track much of the mapping (there already is a draft version of a spreadsheet that maps the BRIDG R2.0 model to RIM2.18).
From the presentation:
I have to admit that I haven't examined the model in complete detail. However, from what I've seen almost everything that you need for the target domain is there and the level of abstraction feels right: low enough to be relatively easy to implement, but high enough so that you don't get wedged into a corner from the get-go.
I did look in a bit of detail at the adverse event model,which is represented in the Bridg Release 2.0 Static Elements report.RTF.
What we see in Figure 5 : View 4 - Adverse Event is ~ 90% of the complete domain model with a number of classes added in support of recording adverse events and tracking their eventual analysis/resolution.
Since adverse events raise some issues about semantic interoperabiltity that I want to talk about in detail I will cover them in my next post.
BTW on my mac, the only application that could open the .rtf file with the figures was open office 3. MS word 2004 elided the figures.