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.
- Task: Would a real study need this derivation, specified this way? Does it follow CDISC ADaM: variable names, controlled terms, record structure? Flag any rule that is ambiguous or that a sponsor would handle differently.
- Inputs: Do they look like data collected in a real trial, and do they include the situations you would expect to meet in one?
- Expected output: Would independent QC programming reproduce every value from these inputs and rules?
The other tabs beside Comments are background for assessment, not under review.
Summary
README.mdGoal: demonstrate the per-record derive step of an aggregation:
convert each record's date to an integer day count with to_epoch_day,
then summarize the integers.
Input: exposure records with sequence numbers (EXSEQ) and
start dates (EXSTDT). Only the record with sequence number 1 becomes
an output row.
Variables:
EXSEQ: the exposure sequence number, carried through.EXSTDY: the exposure start date as a count of days since 1970-01-01 (zero on that day, negative before it), blank when the start date is missing. It is not a day counted from a reference start.
Note: each matching exposure record's date is turned into its day
count first, so the summary works on plain integers and never on dates.
The summary then keeps the value of the one record with the row's
subject and sequence number (ONLY); a second matching record would
stop the run.
Inputs
Under review1 source fileinput/ex.csv
Edit3 rows| STUDYID | USUBJID | EXSEQ | EXSTDT |
|---|---|---|---|
| PILOT7 | 1 | 2024-01-15 | |
| PILOT7 | 2 | 2024-01-16 | |
| PILOT7 | 3 | 2024-01-17 |
Expected output
Under review1 expected rowexpected/adex.csv
Edit1 row| STUDYID | USUBJID | EXSEQ | EXSTDY |
|---|---|---|---|
| PILOT7 | 1 | 19737 |
Comments and assessment materials
| Dataset Name | Variable Name | Variable Label | Type | Codelist/Controlled Terms | Core | Computational Method | Origin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADEX | STUDYID | Study Identifier | character | Copy value from EX.STUDYID. | Predecessor | ||
| ADEX | USUBJID | Unique Subject Identifier | character | Copy value from EX.USUBJID. | Predecessor | ||
| ADEX | EXSEQ | Sequence Number | numeric | Copy value from EX.EXSEQ. | Predecessor | ||
| ADEX | EXSTDY | Epoch Day of Exposure Start | numeric | Aggregate ONLY(EPOCHDAY) over records matching on STUDYID, USUBJID and EXSEQ, with EPOCHDAY as days since 1970-01-01 for EX.EXSTDT. | Derived |
| Template | Include when |
|---|---|
| exposure | EX.EXSEQ = 1 |
| Version | Date | Author | Description | Reviewer | Sign-off |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.3 | 2026-09-29 | yamaa docs build | Show study codelist names, external dictionaries, and ISO 8601 formats in variable rows; list the document's codelist values and metadata | ||
| 1.2 | 2026-09-29 | yamaa docs build | Classify ADaM copies from a declared input as Predecessor and recodes as Derived, and SDTM recodes of locally derived columns as Derived | ||
| 1.1 | 2026-09-29 | yamaa docs build | Resolve lookups into the donor record they select, and give every derivation shape a plain-language rule instead of its raw YAML | ||
| 1.0 | yamaa docs build | Initial generation from spec.yaml |
yamaa
Comments
Signed in with GitHub; saved in repository Discussions