search

ExposuresProvider / icees-api

MIT License
2 stars 8 forks source link

year vs study_period #257

Closed karafecho closed 1 year ago

karafecho commented 1 year ago

This issue is intended to stimulate discussion and reach consensus on whether we should: (1) replace study_period with year in all FHIR PIT pipeline steps; (2) replace year with study_period in all FHIR PIT pipeline steps; or (3) maintain both year and study_period, but treating study_period as a feature variable.

Note that this issue has implications for FHIR PIT, icees db, icees api, and icees kg.

karafecho commented 1 year ago

Following up on our discussion from earlier today, and after some additional thought, I think that we should not treat year or study_period as a feature variable, as these are not really characteristics of the cohort but rather characteristics of the study design. That said, semantically, study_period makes more sense and is also more accurate than year. That said, if we introduce study_period, we will introduce inconsistency across ICEES+ use cases.

hyi commented 1 year ago

@karafecho Have created a PR and merged it to revert Hao's change in FHIR-PIT to revert study period and Active_In_Study_Period back to year and Active_In_Year to be compatible with ICEES+ APIs. Refer to the discussion in the issue #247 for more details regarding this decision.

karafecho commented 1 year ago

Closing issue, as fix was put in place.