Difference between revisions of "WG6 2013 Minutes"
(Created page with "__TOC__ ==May 7, 2013== Standards Roadmap Tcon <br /> May 7, 2013 <br>Attendance: Gitte , Bob, Lynda, Donna, Anisa <br /> '''Action Item Wrap-up:''' <br /> Anisa created draf...")
|Line 161:||Line 161:|
Next meeting is: 09 April
Next meeting is: 09 April
Revision as of 10:20, 14 May 2013
May 7, 2013
Standards Roadmap Tcon
May 7, 2013
Attendance: Gitte , Bob, Lynda, Donna, Anisa
Action Item Wrap-up:
Anisa created draft of Prioritization effort and created document for pre vious meeting minutes. Bob collated all sections of e-Paper into a most recent version and distributed to group.
A.I. Lynda and Debra will work together on the “Points to Consider” section.
-What is the best way to edit and finalize sections?
-Our experience from other working groups was shared, including:
- Donna offered that Word “comments” function can be used by all to edit a section. One person is tasked with compiling all comments and then the group gets consensus about a section by going through the comments on a Tcon
-Gitte offered that each section can have a point-person, and that one person should keep a view on consistency throughout the document.
-Bob offered that in another WG, the group would focus on one or two sections per Tcon to make it easy to focus the groups effort.
- A compilation of these approaches will be used:
- Each section has a point person to build it and oversee the changes from other members. People who make edits to any section, should do so using Tracked changes and Comments. The group will focus on one or two sections of the e-Paper in the upcoming Tcons for consensus and finality.
Putting “data gaps” aside as a topic and subject of the e-paper
The group discussed that the paper should stay a manageable, readable size.
- The current topic, “identifying data gaps and information gaps” has perceived value to the group, but it was mentioned that this topic may go beyond the scope of the paper.
-to prevent going down the rabbit hole, we decided to put “data gaps” aside as a topic and no longer consider it as a subject in the paper.
- One topic that has not been developed in the paper is “How to move forward with standards” The group will develop this section as a final section of the e-paper.
Gitte shared some thinking on this section. Established ontologies should be leveraged for standards, and it was acknowledged that the SEND CT team is working with INHAND. Additional resources must be leveraged for future standards, and more of this will be developed in this section of the epaper.
- A.I. Gitte will populate it with her ideas over the next two weeks.
-A.I. Bob will go through the paper as a whole document this week and make adjustments for clarity and consistency (via tracked changes)
April 23, 2013
Roadmap Telecon Meeting:
April 23, 2013 10:00 am
'Attendees: Bob Dorsam, Anisa Scott, Lynda Sands, Donna Danduone, Gitte Frausing, Rick Thompson
1. Bob asked for status update on e-Paper sections:
- a. Introduction: Rick already submitted draft to group
- b. Questions to Consider: Debra and Lynda discussing elements to include
- c. Considerations for Implementation: Donna spoke with Gitte to address certain questions and get Gitte’s perspective. Donna sent a draft on Monday, 4/22 to Gitte
- d. Links for Stakeholders: already well-populated, anyone feel free to add to this, possibly adding SEND FAQs?
- e. Prioritization of Roadmap: Anisa will send out this week. There was a question about Figure 4 that will be a visual of the roadmap itself and what it should say about the standards and priorities. Should be a forward looking vision. This is TBD.
2. Bob examined data obtained from the surveys to ascertain if individual survey responses were significantly different from company responses.
- a. Conclusion: There were only four responses from companies, which is not optimal for analysis. Nor did the companies rank every entry. In general, there was no significant departure. In some cases there was not complete agreement. e.g. Individuals listed pharmacology & safety pharmacology as high priority, but companies rated them as low/medium priority. Ultimately, decided that there is no need to perform an exhaustive analysis
3. From this discussion, it was discovered that the GSK company response, submitted by Lynda, was missing. Bob will follow-up. The Send button on Adobe Survey may be broken by some email systems. Unfortunately, it is too late to address this.
4. Data/Information Gaps
- a. Study types: groups standardized according to prioritized list
- i. Formulation/impurities information
- ii. Electronic Certificate of Analyses
- iii. Analyses and visualization of information
- b. Information Gaps:
- i. Study Data Reviewer’s Guide
- ii. Compound Development Guide
- c. There are SEND shortcomings when handling CMC data.
- d. There is also Metadata and context for a study not currently captured in SEND.
- e. Statistics, p-values, derived values, grouping summaries go in ADaM not SEND
- f. Complete Package:
- i. Allows context across studies
- ii. Provides view that allows linkage between two studies
- iii. Provides nonclinical overview
- iv. How do we handle information that is humanly inferable to source data but not electronically?
- v. Captures deviations analogous to DV domain in SDTM
- vi. Comment: 129 variables in one dataset to describe a protocol is basically a very unstructured standard!
- g. Bob will put ideas together and send out to team
March 28, 2013
28 March 2013
Attendees: Rick, Anisa, Lynda, Bob, Debra, Sara?
Regrets: Gitte, Donna, LouAnn
One new member: Donna from Instem
Will rotate minute taking. Create a schedule (See list below)
PhUSE take away: Work on small defined projects. Perhaps use a “divide and conquer” technique… Small group work; report back to group at next meeting.
PhUSE take away: Impressed with energy for and investment in topics and projects and teams. There were good discussions surrounding the report outs, and in the end, most groups staying on similar topics although perhaps refocusing efforts to something smaller or more defined.
Nonclinical will have two new groups:
Shree: Access to clinical and nonclinical data for testing purposes across the spectrum. If data were already available, it might be able to test theories or pilot more readily.
Sue D.: Study Reviewer’s Guide. Human readable overview of datasets. Leverage clinical templates to nonclinical.
Evaluation suggestions for Roadmap team from attendees:
- Finish white paper.
- Roadmap is in good shape. Remaining tweaking can/should be handled by SEND development team.
- May increase number of domains available and force more data to be standardized.
Shall we see if we can improve the process for developing a domain or study type…a process map/template for standardizing any given domain? Standards facilitation group? Do a feasibility study on one to see if it would work. Think it through in the white paper first, then try it.
Action: Bob update the WIKI with current thinking
Continue with current meeting schedule. Tues at 10E, 9C
1. White paper: Finish in 3 months? publish?
a. Identify gaps
b. State vision
c. Standards facilitation
2. Identify test space/test process
a. Open forum – 2 months
b. Test space -3 months
3. Pilot test run w/model (exercise)
a. Via Shree
b. 2 months
4. Report out on how it went (deliverable)
How to go about doing a model for making a domain? What is the framework to use? Some folks on framework; some on testing space. Let’s not focus on getting data…someone else is working on it.
First draft on anything helps everything.
Domain development/test environment
Action Bob: introduce survey and feedback and figures
Action Rick: Move already written pieces around to get intro
Goal is end of June
Next meeting is: 09 April
Last revision by DanBoisvert,05/14/2013