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: reviewedEditUnder review
What this benchmark means
README.md

Goal: build a subject-level record carrying the exposure start (TRTSDT) and end (TRTEDT) dates and counting whole months between them in TRTDURM.

Input: collected demographics (DM) records carrying an exposure start date (TRTSDT) and an exposure end date (TRTEDT), one record for each subject.

Variables:

  • TRTSDT would be the exposure start date, taken from DM as collected.
  • TRTEDT would be the exposure end date, taken from DM as collected.
  • TRTDURM would be the whole-month count from TRTSDT to TRTEDT, but it also asks to count both endpoints, which is defined only for a count of days.

Note: counting both endpoints beside a month count has no meaning: inclusive bounds answer "how many days, endpoints included", which has no whole-month reading. The request is rejected before any data is read, so no output is produced.

How to fix

Decide whether the study counts days or whole months, then state only that. A month count stands on its own with no endpoint adjustment:

- name: TRTDURM
  type: int
  derivation:
    date_diff:
      start: TRTSDT
      end: TRTEDT
      unit: month

When the study counts days with both endpoints included, keep unit: day beside bounds: inclusive instead.

Expected failure

Edit
the run is rejected; no artifact is accepted
expected/error.yaml
phase
validation
condition
value_not_permitted
requirement
REQ-0613
expected/error.yaml
phase: validation
condition: value_not_permitted
spec_paths:
  - columns.TRTDURM.derivation.date_diff.bounds
requirement: REQ-0613
context:
  value: inclusive
  permitted: [exclusive]

Inputs

Under review
1 source file

input/dm.csv

Edit
1 row
input/dm.csv
STUDYIDUSUBJIDTRTSDTTRTEDT
YAMAA-012025-01-062025-03-10

Unexpected Output

Under review
No artifact is produced

No fixture files in this directory.

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
ADSLSTUDYIDStudy IdentifiercharacterCopy value from DM.STUDYID.Predecessor
ADSLUSUBJIDUnique Subject IdentifiercharacterCopy value from DM.USUBJID.Predecessor
ADSLTRTSDTDate/Time of First Exposure to TreatmentnumericISO 8601Copy value from DM.TRTSDT.Predecessor
ADSLTRTEDTDate/Time of Last Exposure to TreatmentnumericISO 8601Copy value from DM.TRTEDT.Predecessor
ADSLTRTDURMTotal Duration of Treatment (Months)numericWhole months from TRTSDT to TRTEDT, counting both endpoints.Derived
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