- Created by Erin Muhlbradt, last modified by Jordan Li on Nov 14, 2018
Meeting Notes:
Date | Agenda Item | Notes | Action Item | Additional Files |
---|---|---|---|---|
| A. CT Discussion from 8:30-9:00 and 9:45-10:30. B. BE domain review 9:00-9:30 with Takeda: Mike Hamidi, Sam Kitamura, John Smutko. C. Chris Connolly at 9:30-9:45 – BE/BS domain team call for volunteers. | A. B. BE domain review 9:00-9:30 with Takeda: Mike Hamidi, Sam Kitamura, John Smutko C. Chris Connolly at 9:30 – BE/BS domain team call for volunteers Team Notes: 1. BE was intended to capture parent biospecimen events and what you did with them. From collection to derivation of the final product that was to be assayed. A. Sam asks, is BSSPECCOND a valid variable or should it be SUPPBE.SPECCOND? BE is meant to only document the event and does not have a structure to support assessments. This information shoudld really be in BS. B. Sam asks, there is no easy way in the PF domain to indicate that the RNA used in the assessment came from either peripeheral blood or bone marrow, say. One should use BE to indicate that you have derived a new specimen (RNA) from the parent spec (BM or PB) C. Given for this example and use case, this data doesn't have the full information so we might need to present both use cases as examples: ideal data and real world (incomplete) data. D. BE example: Q from Mike and Sam about the use of suppqual in BE. Lab team suggests that this might be changed to 'Received Condition' if you choose to create SUPPs. Ideally though (and the team's recommendation) this information should be put into a BS dataset. E. HL7 has a specimen message within FHIR. Phil worked on it. Might be worthwhile to harmonize. CDISC is probably only interested in a subset says Phil. Summary: | ||
| Jordan to run lab meeting |
|