Filtering: Methods data quality on case study and regulatory question in bad shape
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- R
- Stars
- 0
- Forks
- 8
- Avg merge
- 44m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
| Field | Real values | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
case_study |
19/20 empty, 1 = "thyroid" |
mostly unfilterable |
regulatory_question |
19/20 empty, 1 = "Q1" |
mostly unfilterable |
relevant_vhp4safety_regulatory_question(s)_content |
14 = "_No response_", 6 = "Kidney Disease (b)" |
wrong vocabulary |
vhp4safety_workflow_stage_content |
AOP (10), Adverse Outcome (4), Kinetics (3), _No response_ (2), `AOP, Adverse |
|
| Outcome` (1) | real data but wrong vocab | |
workflow_substage_content |
Cell death, Adverse outcome (2), Mitochondrial dysfunction (2), _No response_ (7), etc. |
|
| real, but free text | ||
type_content |
_No response_ (11), No response (4), "" (3), 1 purl.enanomapper.org, 1 id.nlm.nih.gov |
mixed |
| placeholder/data |
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
The issue only identifies problematic fields in the Methods data: case_study, regulatory_question, relevant_vhp4safety_regulatory_question(s)_content, vhp4safety_workflow_stage_content, workflow_substage_content, and type_content. No files, tests, entry points, target vocabulary, or acceptance criteria are provided, so first clarify the intended data source and normalization rules before identifying the completion check.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- data
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100