The CLS data managers follow a protocol for creating detailed logic and algorithms for their syntax that includes exact variable names, values and so on. For measures over time, like histories, these can get quite complicated (loops, arrays, macros, etc) and consequently, it is often very technical work. User Guides that show how derived variables were created are published as user documentation.
While the underlying code is not mexico rcs data yet available, CLS plans to release code via a CLS GitHub. While CLS see value in researchers making available their own derived code, and only where it is reproducible and well-commented, they would not have the resources to vet each piece of code; and thus would not put their name to these.
Might having multiple iterations of code published in different places have knock on effect on the reputation of their data?
Are new users happy to accept disclaimers for user-derived code?
Dara reported on post-hoc harmonisation work being done as part of CLOSER across the UK cohort studies in the following areas.