Hi Carol,
We cannot reproduce your false-positive messages using your example values.
Could you share your sample data?
Thank you,
Sergiy
sergiy at opencdisc dot org
Hi Sergiy,
Thank you for the follow-up. I looked into the data more and I think the issue relates to how SAS stores the numeric value. For instance, in SAS, the average value of 3.6 (i.e., average of 3.4 and 3.8) is not stored the same as an individual value of 3.6. The validation check fires because it thinks the change from baseline value should be 0, whereas the stored SAS value for CHG is 4.440892E-16. I'm not sure if there's a work around this at all. Let me know if you would like a sample dataset and the report.
Thanks,
Carol
Hi Carol,
OpenCDISC engine should take care about this issue by rounding original values with some meaningful accuracy.
Please confirm that you are using any of the recent versions of validator?
Thank you,
Sergiy
Hi Sergiy,
Yes, I'm using validator 1.4.1.
Thanks,
Carol
Hi Sergiy,
We find we need to apply a precise rounding function, like y=round(x, .0000000001) and if we don't do that, we hit the error for zero calculations. Should this be necessary, since you say OpenCDISC is supposed to handle it? We are using validator 1.5. Thanks, Joan
Hi Joan,
I think OpenCDISC current algorithm has a bug. Actually it looks at two digits after a decimal point. That's why in some cases you recieve false-positive messages. E.g., for numbers like 1234567 you need to provide accuracy up to 9 digits.
We'll fix this bug soon.
Thanks,
Sergiy
Hi Sergiy,
The problem is still present in 2.0.2. Below is a small SAS program to reproduce the problem.
Cheers
-- Thierry
Dear all,
The problem is still present in 2.2.0 too.
How is the rounding actually done in the validator when determining CHG ?
eg, AVAL=0.064835164800 , BASE=0.064676616900, CHG=0.000158547900 but the error still fires.
Thanks for looking into this,
Jeroen
Hello,
I've ran across a similar posting and I was hoping you could help me address this issue.
I still get this error in both validators, 1.4.1 and 1.5. My lab data is out to 12+ decimal places and uses average values for baseline, so CHG is super tiny. From the report below:
BASE, CHG, AVAL 11.58300018, -0.00000095, 11.58299923
Thanks,
Carol