You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
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:
a user can, in their study, specify a date against which to calculate ages, and then those will always be consistent
You can calculate the age from the birth date at the time of encounter.
We can provide guidance in documentation for both of these approaches? Open to other suggestions.
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
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
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: