Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Meeting Agendas and Action Items

DateAgenda ItemsNotes Action Items
Tasks Completed

2017-01-11

  1. LB document MITEST/CD: Rows 7-8 (CDISC-1823 to 1826)
  2. Status of request for new Variable in lab to house CD markers
  3. Team Working Document – What is the status?
  4. Do we want to keep this meeting or merge with lab meeting?
 
  1. Completed
  2.  The IHC group (Ellie Schatz is running this team) will be requesting this new variable for both LB and MI domain. Craig will follow up with Ellie about status of this request – this variable needs to be requested for both LB and MI.
  3. Batch 1: Team wanted to start with peripheral cells and normal cells commonly assessed by immunophenotyping – done in P29.
    Batch 2: Abnormal/Cancer cells and relative counts of normal cells. – do with P30.
    Still to do for future batches: Bone marrow and progenitor cells; known sub-classes/sub-types of more general cell types. Note: progenitor cells may be lower priority, though Anna may have an AZ opinion. Sue’s company also does progenitor cells via immunophenotyping. Therefore, keep on list for batch 3.
  4. Keep this as a standing, separate meeting for 2017. Erin to create folder on portal and create an attendance file

Craig M. Zwickl will follow up with Ellie about status of this request – this variable needs to be requested for both LB and MI.

Erin Muhlbradt to create folder on portal and create an attendance file.   

In LB document MITEST/CD: Rows 7-8 (CDISC-1823 to 1826) 2017-01-18     2017-01-25     2017-02-01 
  1. P29 public review requests in Lab  P29
  2. Wintrachange Agenda items
  3. New term requests? 
   2017-02-08          

 

P29 Working Documents

...

...

 

  1. CDISC Wintrachange
 

see meeting notes on wiki: https://wiki.cdisc.org/x/rohvAg

 see meeting notes on wiki: https://wiki.cdisc.org/x/rohvAg

 

  

 1. Rules for Marker Strings

2. Discuss a new domain for Immunophenotyping data.

Discussion: What do people thing about splitting immunophenotyping data out of lab and into its own domain? This came from Heather R (part of HIV TAUG team) and others seem to think this is worth pursuing.

This is interesting to people in general because:

  1. IP data require a special set of additional variables that might not be reusable for most other typical lab tests.
  2. IP data can be gotten from tissue so isn’t exclusively a lab (body fluid as a specimen)
  3. This may be overburdening the LB domain – many sponsors split out when putting data together and then put back together before submission.
  4. Unique key is significantly different for IP data vs traditional lab data.
  5. Alternatively: does some of this content belong in the Methods domain?
Craig has sent Erin the existing example file. Erin to put onto Wiki (Erin will make the page only accessible to this team). Phil to find some examples too. Erin to name variables with ‘xx’ in place of two letter domain code.

  

  1. Review Erin action item - FlowC example on wiki
  2. Review HeatherR data examples.
  3. UNIT new term request 

1. Worked on flow cytometry example on wiki

2. Erin to put documents on wiki page. Erin to follow up with Heather regarding question: Team is interested in what data is collected about the specimen. Can we see divmap9 table and are there other data fields you collect that provide information about the specimen?

3.

 

  

  1. Rules for representing marker strings.
  2. HIV TAUG Example work 
  1. Rules for representing marker strings – No quorum
  2. HIV TAUG Example work – Erin provides update; Jane suggests a get together between this team and select members of the HIV TAUG team to show and tell the proposed modeling and new variables. Team proposes week of May 8 for this cross-team meeting.

Prep for meeting on May 10 with HIV TA team:

 i. To do: Put some slides together to introduce the topic

ii. To do: Put some of Heather’s data into an example

 

Working Documents

 

...

Attachments
uploadtrue