Table 3.
Summary of the Mapping Results
| IRB System |
Total # of fields |
Exact Mapping1 |
Equivalent Mapping2 |
Partial Mapping3 |
Supportable Mapping4 |
Derivable Mapping5 |
Out of Scope6 |
Not Defined7 |
Unclear8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 280 | 23.9% | 14.3% | 17.1% | 21.1% | 5.4% | 7.5% | 9.6% | 1.1% |
| B | 241 | 14.9% | 20.7% | 35.7% | 7.5% | 6.6% | 4.9% | 8.7% | 0.8% |
| C | 263 | 20.5% | 23.6% | 16.3% | 10.6% | 9.1% | 2.7% | 13.7% | 3.4% |
| D | 302 | 13.6% | 8.3% | 32.5% | 18.2% | 2.6% | 14.9% | 9.6% | 0.3% |
| E | 141 | 17.7% | 6.4% | 21.3% | 22.7% | 2.8% | 16.3% | 12.1% | 0.7% |
Exact mapping: the form field can be exactly mapped to an attribute of a class in the Model.
Equivalent mapping: the form field can be semantically equal-mapped to the Model by combining more than one attributes from one or more classes.
Partial mapping: the Model has a general attribute covering more than one related form fields but lacks the specificity defined in the form fields.
Supportable mapping: the form field is supported by defining value set(s) for a certain attribute in the Model.
Derivable mapping: the form field cannot be directly mapped to a class or attribute in the Model but it can be derived from other attribute(s).
Out of scope: the form field is defined according to local regulations or policies and it is intentionally excluded from the core model. However, it is possible to extend the Model to support such local policies.
Not defined: the Model does not have a corresponding class or attribute defined for the form field.
Unclear: the definition of the form field is not clear.