-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
docs: 📝 expand on inclusions and exclusions #133
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Signe Kirk Brødbæk <40836345+signekb@users.noreply.github.com>
Since the Can we do this as-is (my uneducation opinion), or do we need to change the function name? |
…he inputs go to exclusion functions
…s/osdc into update-function-flow
@Aastedet it sounds like we need some processing before joining then. Could you document those filtering steps in the function flow/design docs? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is coming along nicely!! Just some comments for now.
…s/osdc into update-function-flow
Autoformatting made a few changes after resolving previous merge conflict.
Yes - I've added them in the latest commit |
…drugs with a dual-use for weightloss.
Reformatted output variable lists to start with variable names, followed by a short description. Also added info on renamed variables.
…e_lpr2() function
The first draft describing the function flow is done now. Some minor details probably need aligning through-out the document for consistency, and some of the function flow might not be the best way to technically implement the pipeline, but let's discuss at the meeting later. |
…xcessive. Added a bit more detail to the raw_inclusion_date vs stable_inclusion_date.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice, Anders! 👍 I have some suggestions + questions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looking this over, I can feel a bit overwhelmed with everything. And I think it's because there is some mixing of the details of the algorithm with the interfaces of the functions we want to have.
I think it would help if there was a clearer separation between the two: algorithm implementation and (internal) function interfaces. For instance, the algorithm details can go into filtering, excluding, keeping, etc while the function interface can focus on what are the arguments, what are the input types for the arguments, and what is the output.
I will make a PR to stack on this one to see if I can split it out a bit more.
Co-authored-by: Signe Kirk Brødbæk <40836345+signekb@users.noreply.github.com>
…te-function-flow # Conflicts: # vignettes/function-flow.Rmd
…s/osdc into update-function-flow
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
get_diagnosis_date() renamed to get_inclusion_date() Co-authored-by: Signe Kirk Brødbæk <40836345+signekb@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just to merge this in so the stacked PR can be synched with main
…te-function-flow
…s/osdc into update-function-flow
ChatGPT seems to understand what I'm trying to describe (although it shouldn't apply the exclusion functions just yet): https://chatgpt.com/share/66eab6f4-0ffc-800a-aedb-d9dae21c48c3 😄
Closes #130
Closes #140