Review ask

As a clinical trial statistician or programmer, answer two short questions in Your review: the task and the inputs. Agreeing with both approves this benchmark; disagreeing with either needs a comment. Propose a fix with the Edit button on any source file, or add it to your comments.

We suggest spending no more than 5 minutes on a review. The other tabs beside Your review are background for assessment, not under review.

Summary

Lifecycle: reviewedEditUnder review
What this benchmark means
README.md

Public entries: Python and R. Passing coverage requires an installed inventory.

Goal: build the analysis dataset with one record per subject carrying SITEID.

Input: collected demographics records with SITEID giving the enrolling site.

Variables:

  • SITEID would hold the site the subject enrolled at, copied from the collected site.

Note: the completed dataset is checked for one record per site, but a site that enrolled more than one subject repeats its SITEID, which then cannot identify a subject record. The run is rejected and no artifact is accepted.

How to fix

Decide whether a record represents a subject or a site before editing anything. When a record is a subject, the keys already make each subject appear once; remove the check on SITEID rather than restate them:

keys: [STUDYID, USUBJID]

When one record per site is the intent, aggregate the subjects to site records before asserting that each site appears once.

Expected failure

Edit
the run is rejected; no artifact is accepted
expected/error.yaml
phase
verification
condition
unique_failed
rule
CHECK-10
expected/error.yaml
phase: verification
condition: unique_failed
spec_paths:
  - verifications[0].unique
rule: CHECK-10
context:
  columns: [SITEID]
  failure_count: 1
  keys:
    - STUDYID: PILOT7
      USUBJID: P7-941
    - STUDYID: PILOT7
      USUBJID: P7-942

Inputs

Under review
1 source file

input/dm.csv

Edit
2 rows
input/dm.csv
STUDYIDUSUBJIDSITEID
PILOT7101
PILOT7101

Unexpected Output

Under review
No artifact is produced

No fixture files in this directory.

Shaded columns are derived— = missing value

Human review and assessment

Your review

2 questions and your comments · View benchmark 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
ADSLSITEIDSite IdentifiercharacterCopy value from DM.SITEID.Predecessor
VersionDateAuthorDescriptionReviewerSign-off
1.72026-10-20yamaa docs buildRead a specification in the 1.0 surface as its 0.5 counterpart; state that missing values stay missing where a mapping declares no missing handler, and leave out a declared missing answer that restates a handler's default
1.62026-10-17yamaa docs buildDescribe collected date parts written as ISO 8601 date text and times of day counted in seconds since midnight
1.52026-10-17yamaa docs buildName collected precision in words instead of letter codes; state imputation fallbacks, minimum source precision, bounds ignored outside the collected period, and invalid text with no handler as an error; describe date and datetime shifts, imputation flag codes, and partial text giving no date part
1.42026-10-15yamaa docs buildState datetime precision codes through the hour and minute, and complete only the time parts a collected datetime lacks
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