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: carry DTHDT and LSTVSDY through and take the later of the two in LSTALVDT as the date the subject was last known alive.

Input: collected demographics carrying the date of death (DTHDTC) and the last-visit study day (LSTVSDY), including one subject with no recorded death date and one with no recorded last-visit day.

Variables:

  • DTHDT would be the date of death, carried over from DTHDTC, and missing when no death date was collected.
  • LSTVSDY would be the study day of the last visit, counted from the first dose, and missing when no last visit was recorded.
  • LSTALVDT would be the later of DTHDT and LSTVSDY as the date last known alive.

Note: a calendar date and a day number share no common order, so the run is rejected before any data is read and no artifact is accepted.

How to fix

Put both candidates on the same scale before comparing them. For example, carry the actual last-visit date in the source and compare two date columns:

- name: LSTVSDT
  type: date
  derivation:
    source: DM.LSTVSDTC

- name: LSTALVDT
  type: date
  derivation:
    greatest:
      sources: [DTHDT, LSTVSDT]

If only LSTVSDY is available, derive its calendar date from the study-day reference under a separately stated rule before using greatest.

Expected failure

Edit
the run is rejected; no artifact is accepted
expected/error.yaml
phase
validation
condition
incomparable_sources
requirement
REQ-0324
expected/error.yaml
phase: validation
condition: incomparable_sources
spec_paths:
  - columns.LSTALVDT.derivation.greatest
requirement: REQ-0324
context:
  sources: [DTHDT, LSTVSDY]
  types: [date, int]

Inputs

Under review
1 source file

input/dm.csv

Edit
3 rows
input/dm.csv
STUDYIDUSUBJIDDTHDTCLSTVSDY
YAMAA-012023-05-14118
YAMAA-01—142
YAMAA-012024-01-30—

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
ADSLDTHDTDate of DeathnumericISO 8601Copy value from DM.DTHDTC.Predecessor
ADSLLSTVSDYLast Visit Study DaynumericCopy value from DM.LSTVSDY.Predecessor
ADSLLSTALVDTDate Last Known AlivenumericISO 8601Greatest of DTHDT and LSTVSDY.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