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 one subject-level record carrying the collected age (AGE) and sex (SEX), one for each subject the collected demographics carry.

Input: collected demographics records carrying age (AGE) and sex (SEX), where a subject may be collected on more than one record.

Variables:

  • AGE would be the collected age, carried into the result unchanged.
  • SEX would be the collected sex, carried into the result unchanged.

Note: the subject decides how many records come out, so a subject collected twice is still one record and both collected records feed it. A value both records report the same way, or that only one of them reports, is one answer and carries without complaint. Two different ages are two answers to a question the record has one place for, so the run fails where the age is read and no artifact is accepted.

How to fix

Reconcile the two collected records and correct the governed demographics input so it holds one supported age for the subject. If both records are legitimate, declare which one answers, for example the one collected last, rather than leaving the choice to file order:

- name: AGE
  type: int
  derivation:
    source:
      variable: DM.AGE
      order_by: [DM.DMDTC]
      keep: last

The sample records carry no collection date (DMDTC here), so the source has to supply one first.

Do not reach for a row template to make the two records two rows. keys states one record per subject, so a second row for that subject would only move the same rejection to the output gate, as negative-output-duplicate shows.

Expected failure

Edit
the run is rejected; no artifact is accepted
expected/error.yaml
phase
derivation
condition
multiple_values_per_key
requirement
REQ-0075
expected/error.yaml
phase: derivation
condition: multiple_values_per_key
spec_paths:
  - columns.AGE.derivation.source
requirement: REQ-0075
context:
  identifier: DM.AGE
  value_count: 2
  keys:
    - STUDYID: YAMAA-01
      USUBJID: YAMAA-01-102

Inputs

Under review
1 source file

input/dm.csv

Edit
7 rows
input/dm.csv
STUDYIDUSUBJIDAGESEX
YAMAA-0164F
YAMAA-0158M
YAMAA-0159M
YAMAA-0172F
YAMAA-0172F
YAMAA-0145M
YAMAA-01—M

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
ADSLAGEAgenumericCopy value from DM.AGE.Predecessor
ADSLSEXSexcharacterCopy value from DM.SEX.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