Review ask

As a clinical trial statistician or programmer, challenge anything in this benchmark: describe a problem in Comments, or propose a fix with the Edit button on any source file.

  1. Task: Is this a specification error a study team could realistically make, and should the build stop on it rather than continue?
  2. Inputs: Do they trigger the failure for the reason the summary gives?
  3. Expected failure: Is this the right error, raised at the right point, and would it tell the programmer what to fix?

The other tabs beside Comments are background for assessment, not under review.

Summary

Lifecycle: draftEditUnder review
What this benchmark means
README.md

Goal: carry the analysis date (ADT), the numeric result (AVAL), and the baseline flag (ABLFL) for each laboratory result, and check that each subject and parameter has exactly one flagged baseline result.

Input: collected laboratory results carrying analysis date (ADT), numeric result (AVAL), and baseline flag (ABLFL). One subject has two flagged records and another has none.

Variables:

  • ABLFL is the input baseline flag: Y on the record that serves as the baseline for the subject and parameter, blank on every other record.

Note: the grouped count has no id, and the declaration is valid. It runs and reports the failing subject-parameter groups at its specification path. The bounds remain available in the declaration at that path.

How to fix

Correct the baseline flags in the incoming records so each subject and parameter has exactly one record flagged Y.

Expected failure

Edit
the run is rejected; no artifact is accepted
expected/error.yaml
phase
verification
condition
row_count_failed
requirement
REQ-0385
expected/error.yaml
phase: verification
condition: row_count_failed
spec_paths:
  - verifications[1].row_count
requirement: REQ-0385
context:
  failure_count: 2
  keys:
    - STUDYID: YAMAA-01
      USUBJID: YAMAA-01-101
      PARAMCD: ALT
    - STUDYID: YAMAA-01
      USUBJID: YAMAA-01-102
      PARAMCD: ALT
  counts:
    - 2
    - 0

Inputs

Under review
1 source file

input/adlb_raw.csv

Edit
3 rows
input/adlb_raw.csv
STUDYIDUSUBJIDPARAMCDADTAVALABLFL
YAMAA-01ALT2025-01-0110Y
YAMAA-01ALT2025-01-0815Y
YAMAA-01ALT2025-01-018—

Unexpected Output

Under review
3 rows presented to the failing check - not an accepted artifact

expected/adlb.csv

Edit
3 rows
expected/adlb.csv
STUDYIDUSUBJIDPARAMCDADTAVALABLFL
YAMAA-01ALT2025-01-0110Y
YAMAA-01ALT2025-01-0815Y
YAMAA-01ALT2025-01-018—
Shaded columns are derived— = missing value

Comments and assessment materials

Comments

Signed in with GitHub; saved in repository Discussions

Mapping spec

Generated from the benchmark YAML; do not edit by hand

Dataset NameVariable NameVariable LabelTypeCodelist/Controlled TermsCoreComputational MethodOrigin
ADLBSTUDYIDStudy IdentifiercharacterCopy value from ADLB_RAW.STUDYID.Predecessor
ADLBUSUBJIDUnique Subject IdentifiercharacterCopy value from ADLB_RAW.USUBJID.Predecessor
ADLBPARAMCDParameter CodecharacterCopy value from ADLB_RAW.PARAMCD.Predecessor
ADLBADTAnalysis DatenumericISO 8601Copy value from ADLB_RAW.ADT.Predecessor
ADLBAVALAnalysis ValuenumericCopy value from ADLB_RAW.AVAL.Predecessor
ADLBABLFLBaseline Record FlagcharacterCopy value from ADLB_RAW.ABLFL.Predecessor
VersionDateAuthorDescriptionReviewerSign-off
1.32026-09-29yamaa docs buildShow study codelist names, external dictionaries, and ISO 8601 formats in variable rows; list the document's codelist values and metadata
1.22026-09-29yamaa docs buildClassify ADaM copies from a declared input as Predecessor and recodes as Derived, and SDTM recodes of locally derived columns as Derived
1.12026-09-29yamaa docs buildResolve lookups into the donor record they select, and give every derivation shape a plain-language rule instead of its raw YAML
1.0yamaa docs buildInitial generation from spec.yaml