Fw: [Babase] Re: Request for Susan's input on SCI5 (fwd)

Amboseli Baboon Research Project babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:35:54 +0300


In response to Karl's comments:

>
> I like the idea of a status of "fetus".

Good, the more I think about it the more I feel that it solves some problems 
for us that have been hanging around for a while.

>
> ...... We would then have 4 sorts of pregnancies.
>
> 1) Ongoing pregnancies.  These have no associated biograph
> row and so won't show up when you're looking at
> BIOGRAPH.Birth to determine end-of-pregnancy date.

So Status = fetus would never apply to these. In fact they have no status 
until they have a biograph row, right? Which is assigned at birth or 
statdate?
>
> 2) Abortions/stillbirths.  On BIOGRAPH the Status is
> "dead" and the Birth = Statdate.
>
> 3) Observation abandoned during pregnancy.  On BIOGRAPH
> the Status is "fetus" and the Birth = Statdate.

So if we terminate observation while mum is pregnant, it gets a row in 
biograph with a birthdate = statdate and a status of fetus, and a wide 
margin of error on bstatus, as with SCI5? Or what?

>
> 4) Births.  On BIOGRAPH Birth != Statdate.
>
> I don't like a Status of "unknown" as it's not especially descriptive
> of the state of the unborn on the Statdate.

I agree.
>
> Whatever solution we arrive at must be able to distinguish
> these 4 cases, or ensure that case 3 never occurs.

Right, "status = fetus" solves this I think.
>
>> > 2.  Delete the row for SCI5 from BIOGRAPH but keep the record in
>> > PREGS.
>
> The trouble with this approach is it makes it hard to distingush
> case 1, ongoing pregnancy, from case 3, observation abandoned.

Again, status = fetus would solve this I think.

Susan