Pinnacle Value
Ernest Babin
PORTFOLIO STRUCTURE - SECURITY TYPES
1. Undervalued common stocks that are available at very inexpensive
prices and offer lots of value for price paid.
2.Exchange traded and closed end funds to provide exposure to a
specific market segment or country.
I'm trying to validate an ADaM Define.xml using P21 Community and when I run the report using the ADaM CT Standard and Define configuration, I get the DD0045: "Missing Domain value" error. I'm not really sure why I am getting this error message since the details for DD0045 seem to suggest this check should only be applied for SDTM and SEND data. Is this an issue with P21 Community or am I missing something?
Originally, I thought that was causing the error as well but I did verify that the StandardName is "ADaM-IG" and I'm using the StandardVersion="1.1". I tried updating the StandardVersion to "1.0" and this is what is actually causing the issue. This error goes away once StandardVersion is set to "1.0". I understand that P21 Community does not support ADaM IG v1.1 yet but the rules did not specify a check for the version number. I will just need to make a note of this since updating to v1.0 would be incorrect for this particular study.
Allowable values of Standard Name are: 'SDTM-IG', 'SEND-IG', 'SEND-IG-AR', 'ADaM-IG', or 'BIMO' for Define-XML v2.0 or 'CDISC SDTM', 'CDISC SEND', or 'CDISC ADaM' for Define-XML v1.0. Values must conform to this list of values. Define-XML specification represents Standard Name as def:StandardName attribute on MetaDataVersion element. Note: Refer to the data standards catalog by the relevant Regulatory Agency for acceptance of standards and their versions.
This rule (DD0021-Invalid Standard Name value) algorithm is correct, but updating the Description was missed during our first pass at Define-XML 2.1 implementation. Thank you for pointing it out to us. I've created a ticket to have the rule description updated.
Thank you so much for your quick turn around. The above error got resolved after updating your suggestion. However, I have got another issue with variable Label ECOCCUR which is populating while validating define.xml(This error is not populating while validating .xpt). As per CDISC V3.3 it's is 'Occurrence' and P21 says 'Occurrence Indicator' which doesn't match SDTM IG Version3.3 . Can this be also be looked at your end to avoid the error to be populating for define.xml.
I have one more question regarding P21 ID DD0127 'Invalid use of Alias'. The rule says "An Alias must not be provided when the codelist is non-standard (i.e., code list is sponsor defined)." However I am getting error for most of the code list e.g ACN,AESV,AGEU,FRQ,IECAT etc.
Thank you for looking into the bug. However , I have one more question regarding P21 ID DD0127 'Invalid use of Alias'. The rule says "An Alias must not be provided when the code list is non-standard (i.e., code list is sponsor defined)." However I am getting error for most of the code list e.g ACN,AESV,AGEU,FRQ,IECAT etc. Attached is the screenshot for the same where correct code list ID has been used for standard code list value.
DD0127 is firing because you specified C-codes for certain codelists, but did not specify the name of the terminology correctly (or at all). What values are you populating on the Codelists tab under the Terminology column? Any records with a codelist c-code needs to have a value under Terminology.
This is fine and I've seen before. However, in September, we ran the same data with the same metadata (Community version 2.2, same dictionary versions, same CT version etc) and this time we received the same message but as a WARNING rather than an ERROR:
This is actually one of the most commonly occurring instances of CT2002 based on our metrics. I'll do my best to explain. The SDTM Implementation Guide states: RACE is subject to controlled terminology found in non-extensible codelist named RACE (C74457). The problem with this is that there are discrepancies between the values within the non-extensible codelist and the SDTM IG. For example:
I would suggest you explain this conformance rule in your Reviewer's Guide and explain what value or values of RACE are triggering the rule. It may just be as simple as explaining that the SDTM IG and codelist disagree with each other.
As Trevor already explained, this is due to a discrepancy between the SDTM-IG and the CDISC Controlled Terminology (CDISC-CT).
The background is a lack of agreement between the two development teams within CDISC. The CDISC-CT team states that "multiple" and "other" semantically are not races, and so does not want to add them to the list (well "unknown" isn't either).
I read value bettors get limited or restricted very often on the European soft bookies. Before I start with the software I would like to know if it is worthwhile to only use sharp bookies for value betting or is the amount of value bets to low over there to turnover a decent amount to make some decent profits?
That being said I have had quite nice success with SBO with bit over 2% yield and almost 1500 bets.
I hear that around 2 % is achievable for sharps and there seems to be fair amount of bets available for Betfair exchange as well but I have not tried those too much yet
We're working on producing a define.xml from from a spec spreadsheet in Excel, using the Pinnacle21 system. We're noticing that for value-level variables, the where clause will be duplicated if the same text is used to qualify two or more variables. In the attached example, DRVMTH and one other variable are both qualified by PARAMCD, which is normal, but the where-clause gets repeated. It is worth noting that we have checked that the WhereClause ID is definitely distinct. We can resolve this issue if we modify the where clause value to be distinct for each variable we're "value-leveling" by including the variable label, rather than the value decode (in this case Sum of Diameters (mm)). However, I think it makes more sense to have the decode in the define.xml, and shouldn't these be treated as separate clauses based on the WhereClause ID, solely? Otherwise, what's the point of having an ID if it doesn't uniquely identify the clause?
I think it is always wise to have a second option to edit/correct define.xml files that you automatically generate from things like Excel worksheets. There are several good tools on the market for editing/correcting define.xml files that are very user-friendly (with wizards and including validation) allowing you to take control. And of course you can always learn about define.xml in detail (including the XML) e.g. by following a by CDISC organized training. As a last resource, you can also correct your define.xml files using a normal XML editor. Some are free, others cost less than 100-200$. We do use such one in the CDISC define.xml trainings.
In the case that you have, correcting the define.xml would take something like 3 minutes or less using an XML editor.
So would I be correct in saying that there are limitations in the Pinnacle21 converter, which cannot be overcome (or are prohibitively difficult to overcome) using Excel alone? We're trying to figure out if we're doing something wrong, or if this is just the state-of-play of the conversion tool.
Today's high-performing organizations need to maximize the value of project information to capitalize on their investments, improve project performance and optimize the return on resources, effectively achieving more with less.
Are your organizations managing multiple projects or programs? Are you challenged with integrating all these projects into a cohesive picture for senior management? Our EPPM experts enable clients to continuously improve the tactical delivery of projects across their "enterprise".
Pinnacle has over 20 years of experience enabling agencies and corporations over a diverse portfolio of industries to effectively adopt Integrated Program Management solutions though Management Consulting, Business System Implementations, and Training and Adoption.
c80f0f1006