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: record each subject's date of death (DTHDT) and last-visit study day (LSTVSDY) from collected demographics, and keep the earlier of the two in FSTALVDT as the first known alive date.

Input: collected demographics carrying a death date-time (DTHDTC) and the last-visit study day (LSTVSDY).

Variables:

  • DTHDT would be the date of death taken from DTHDTC, missing when no death was recorded.
  • LSTVSDY would be the study day of the last visit, counting days, not dates.
  • FSTALVDT would be the first known alive date: the earlier of the death date and the last-visit date, or the one present when the other is missing. A calendar date and a day count have no common order, so there is no earlier of the two: the run is rejected before any data is read and no artifact is accepted.

How to fix

Decide which date the study reports, then state it in dates. Take the last contact from the date the visit was collected on, read into a date column (LSTCONDT here), not from its study day, so both sides are dates:

- name: FSTALVDT
  type: date
  derivation:
    least:
      sources: [DTHDT, LSTCONDT]

When only the day count exists, keep the count as a count instead of forcing it into a date column.

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.FSTALVDT.derivation.least
requirement: REQ-0324
context:
  sources: [DTHDT, LSTVSDY]
  types: [date, int]

Inputs

Under review
1 source file

input/dm.csv

Edit
6 rows
input/dm.csv
STUDYIDUSUBJIDDTHDTCLSTVSDY
YAMAA-012025-03-1474
YAMAA-01—92
YAMAA-012025-01-02—
YAMAA-01—1
YAMAA-012025-06-30181
YAMAA-01——

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
ADSLFSTALVDTFirst Known Alive DatenumericISO 8601Least 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