Open James-R-Jones opened 4 months ago
So the reason we stopped doing this is due to the inexorable march of time - we have to calculate age when the library is run, and that mean if we run the same thing a year later, all the ages have gone up one, and your bins get skewed, and your results may lose repeatability.
there are two current workarounds:
We can provide guidance in documentation for both of these approaches? Open to other suggestions.
Ok, makes sense, good to honor repeatability.
How do we feel about exposing birthyear in Core Patient counts instead? I still think it is important to see the distribution as a population demographic and it is something studies could easily build off
Yeah, that seems like a reasonable add.
I know studies will have their own age resolution and ranges that are most relevant, but could default to showing individual ages or a range to quickly characterize a site's population along with gender race and ethnicity.
Expected: ability to determine a site's general population distribution in the core patient table Actual: no age column at the moment