Skip to content
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

Fix criteria offsets #19

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 1, 2024
Merged

Fix criteria offsets #19

merged 3 commits into from
Oct 1, 2024

Conversation

justin13601
Copy link
Collaborator

@justin13601 justin13601 commented Oct 1, 2024

Year must be expressed in terms of days, so 1Y = 365D then 5Y = 1865D

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Enhanced prediction tasks for Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) in diabetic patients, with clearer eligibility criteria and refined definitions for diabetes-related conditions.
    • Updated prediction task for myocardial infarction (MI) occurrences, with clarified timeframes for assessing events post-annual physical.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Adjusted time window definitions to ensure accurate tracking of relevant health events.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 1, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes involve updates to two YAML configuration files related to predicting health conditions in patients. The first file refines criteria for predicting Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) in diabetic patients, clarifying eligibility and timeframes. The second file adjusts time windows for assessing myocardial infarction (MI) occurrences following annual physicals, ensuring clearer definitions for input and target periods. Both files maintain existing structures while enhancing specificity in their respective tasks.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
src/MEDS_DEV/tasks/criteria/disease_progression/... Updated eligibility criteria and predicates for CKD prediction in diabetic patients; clarified time windows.
src/MEDS_DEV/tasks/criteria/phenotyping/outpatient/... Adjusted time windows for MI prediction task; aligned gap and target periods with the start of the input period.

Poem

🐇 In the meadow where health blooms bright,
Changes made, oh what a sight!
CKD and MI, paths now clear,
With timeframes set, we have no fear.
Hops of joy for each new line,
Health predictions, oh so fine! 🌼


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 2

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/MEDS_DEV/tasks/criteria/disease_progression/diabetes/ckd_post_kidney_labs.yaml (2)

75-75: Approved: Time window accurately defined. Consider minor improvement.

The change from a relative term to "1825D" (1825 days) for the 5-year period is correct and aligns well with the PR objectives. This improves clarity and precision in the time window definition.

For consistency with other time expressions in the file (e.g., "90d" on line 70), consider using lowercase 'd' instead of uppercase 'D'. Apply this minor change:

-    end: start + 1825D # 5 years
+    end: start + 1825d # 5 years

Line range hint 1-84: Placeholder values need to be replaced

I noticed that several predicates in the file use placeholder values (???). These need to be replaced with actual values or expressions for the task to function correctly.

Would you like assistance in identifying which predicates need to be defined and suggestions for their potential implementations?

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 168b969 and 9aee535.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/MEDS_DEV/tasks/criteria/disease_progression/diabetes/ckd_post_kidney_labs.yaml (1 hunks)
  • src/MEDS_DEV/tasks/criteria/phenotyping/outpatient/MI/1y-5y.yaml (1 hunks)

Comment on lines +31 to +32
start: trigger + 365D
end: start + 1825D # 5 years
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codebase verification

Inconsistency Found in Time Window Definitions

The end time is currently set to start + 1825D, which results in a total duration of approximately 6 years instead of the intended 5 years.

  • File: src/MEDS_DEV/tasks/criteria/phenotyping/outpatient/MI/1y-5y.yaml
    • start: trigger + 365D
    • end: start + 1825D # 5 years
🔗 Analysis chain

Approve the conversion to days, but verify the use of 'start' for the end time

The changes align with the PR objective of expressing years in terms of days, which improves precision. The added comment clarifying that 1825D represents 5 years enhances readability.

Please confirm if start + 1825D is semantically equivalent to the previous trigger + 5y. If not, consider using trigger + 1825D to maintain consistency with the description that mentions "between 1 and 5 years after their annual physical".

To verify the impact of this change and ensure consistency, you can run the following script:

This will help ensure consistency across similar task definitions.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for other occurrences of time windows defined relative to 'trigger' or 'start'

# Search for 'trigger' and 'start' in time window definitions
rg --type yaml 'trigger \+|\bstart \+' src/MEDS_DEV/tasks/criteria/phenotyping/

Length of output: 357

@@ -22,14 +22,14 @@
index_timestamp: end
gap:
start: trigger
end: trigger + 1y
end: start + 365D
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codebase verification

Inconsistent Time Window Definitions After Conversion

The change from trigger + 1y to start + 365D in src/MEDS_DEV/tasks/criteria/phenotyping/outpatient/MI/1y-5y.yaml results in:

  • start: trigger + 365D
  • end: start + 365D (effectively trigger + 730D)
  • end: start + 1825D (# 5 years)

This adjustment shifts the gap window from one year after the trigger to two years, which may deviate from the intended criteria of "within 1 year of their annual physical."

🔗 Analysis chain

Approve the conversion to days, but verify the use of 'start'

The change from trigger + 1y to start + 365D aligns with the PR objective of expressing years in terms of days, which improves precision. However, using start instead of trigger might alter the semantic meaning of the gap window.

Please confirm if start + 365D is semantically equivalent to the previous trigger + 1y. If not, consider using trigger + 365D to maintain consistency with the description that mentions "within 1 year of their annual physical".

To verify the impact of this change, you can run the following script:

This will help ensure consistency across similar task definitions.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for other occurrences of time windows defined relative to 'trigger' or 'start'

# Search for 'trigger' and 'start' in time window definitions
rg --type yaml 'trigger \+|\bstart \+' src/MEDS_DEV/tasks/criteria/phenotyping/

Length of output: 357


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify consistency of time window definitions across all phenotyping outpatient MI YAML files

# Search for YAML files in src/MEDS_DEV/tasks/criteria/phenotyping/outpatient/MI/ directory
fd --type f --extension yaml src/MEDS_DEV/tasks/criteria/phenotyping/outpatient/MI/ | while read file; do
  echo "File: $file"
  rg 'start\s*:\s*trigger\s*\+\s*\d+D' "$file"
  rg 'end\s*:\s*start\s*\+\s*\d+D' "$file"
done

Length of output: 619


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify consistency of time window definitions across all phenotyping outpatient MI YAML files

# Search for YAML files in src/MEDS_DEV/tasks/criteria/phenotyping/outpatient/MI/ directory using a match-all pattern
fd . --type f --extension yaml --full-path 'src/MEDS_DEV/tasks/criteria/phenotyping/outpatient/MI/' | while read file; do
  echo "File: $file"
  rg 'start\s*:\s*trigger\s*\+\s*\d+D' "$file"
  rg 'end\s*:\s*start\s*\+\s*\d+D' "$file"
done

Length of output: 559

@justin13601 justin13601 merged commit 2224e26 into main Oct 1, 2024
4 of 5 checks passed
@justin13601 justin13601 deleted the fix-criteria-offsets branch October 1, 2024 20:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant