chore: #137 suppress warnings from spec_to_metacore

[bms63]

• I just added code to suppress the warnings from the function
• Did not rerun datasets or TFs

[github-actions]

Dataset QC Check Complete!

Date: 2026-01-11
Run by: bms63
Git Ref: refs/pull/138/merge
BASE: Pilot 5 Datasets
COMPARE: Pilot 3 Datasets

✅ Dataset: adadas

No issues were found!

✅ Dataset: adae

No issues were found!

✅ Dataset: adlbc

No issues were found!

✅ Dataset: adsl

No issues were found!

✅ Dataset: adtte

No issues were found!

[github-actions]

TLF QC Check Complete!

Date: 2026-01-11
Run by: bms63
Git Ref: refs/pull/138/merge
BASE: Pilot 5 Datasets
COMPARE: Pilot 3 Datasets

✅ Dataset: tlf-demographic-pilot5.out

old[36:40] vs new[36:40]
  "—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————"
  ""
  "Program: tlf-demographic.r "
- "2026-01-08 02:22:28.583663"
+ "2024-04-18 20:17:25"
  ""

✅ TLF: tlf-kmplot-pilot5.pdf - Score: 75

[1] "1. Title Format: Image 1 has a simpler title 'KM plot for Time to First Dermatologic Event: Safety population' at the top, while Image 2 has 'KM plot for Time to First Dermatologic Event: Safety population' with slightly different formatting/positioning.\n\n2. Grid Lines: Image 1 has no visible grid lines on the plot area, while Image 2 has a clear grid pattern overlaying the entire plot area.\n\n3. Y-axis Label: Image 1 has 'Survival Event' as the y-axis label, while Image 2 has 'Probability of event' as the y-axis label.\n\n4. Y-axis Scale: Both go from 0.00 to 1.00, but the presentation and tick marks appear slightly different.\n\n5. X-axis Label: Image 1 shows 'Time to First Dermatologic Event (Days)' while Image 2 shows 'Time to First Dermatologic Event (Days)' - appears identical but with slightly different font rendering.\n\n6. Reference Line: Image 1 has a horizontal dashed line at approximately 0.50, while Image 2 also has a dashed horizontal line at 0.50 but it appears more prominent.\n\n7. Legend Position: Image 1 has the legend positioned on the right side mid-plot, while Image 2 has the legend positioned on the right side but slightly higher.\n\n8. Legend Label: Both use 'TRT01A' but Image 2's legend appears to have slightly different spacing or font.\n\n9. Confidence Interval Shading: The shaded confidence interval regions appear to have slightly different opacity levels between the two images.\n\n10. At Risk Table Format: The 'At risk' table below the plot has different formatting - Image 1 has a more compact layout while Image 2 has more spacing between elements.\n\n11. At Risk Table Numbers: The numbers in the at risk tables are different. For example, for Placebo in Image 1: 86, 75, 65, 59, 50, 47... while in Image 2: 86, 75, 65, 59, 50, 47, 45, 42, 40, 35, 0.\n\n12. Program Information: Image 1 shows 'Program ID: Enroll | 2024-01-07 18:07:04[262]' while Image 2 shows 'Program: [IIkm/plot_r | [202404~18 20:17:28]]' - different timestamps and format.\n\n13. Background: Both have white backgrounds but subtle differences in tone may exist.\n\n14. Line Thickness: The Kaplan-Meier curves appear to have slightly different line thicknesses between the images.\n\n15. Color Intensity: The colors of the three treatment groups appear slightly different in intensity between the two images."

✅ TLF: tlf-efficacy-pilot5.rtf - Score: 99

[1] "After careful examination of both images, I found the following differences:\n\n1. Footer timestamp: The footer text at the bottom of the table shows different dates/times:\n - Image 1: 'Footnotes: LS = least squares [CREATED: 20-JUL-13 20:13]'\n - Image 2: 'Footnotes: LS = least squares [CREATED: 20-JUL-13 20:17]'\n The creation time differs by 4 minutes (20:13 vs 20:17)\n\n2. All other elements appear identical, including:\n - Title: 'ANCOVA of Change from Baseline at Week 20'\n - Table structure and layout\n - Column headers (Treatment, Week 20, Change from Baseline)\n - All data values (N, Mean, SD, LS Mean, 95% CI)\n - Treatment rows (Xanomeline High Dose, Xanomeline Low Dose, Placebo)\n - Statistical values and confidence intervals\n - Footnote text explaining ANCOVA methodology\n - Overall table formatting and borders"

✅ TLF: tlf-primary-pilot5.rtf - Score: 98

[1] "After a detailed pixel-by-pixel comparison of both images, I found the following differences:\n\n1. Table footnote text differences: In the first table's footnote section, there is a subtle text difference in one line:\n - Image 1: 'on the p-value is shown as signed p-value (treatment effect as a continuous variable)'\n - Image 2: 'on the p-value is shown as signed p-value (treatment effect as a continuous variable)'\n The text appears identical in content.\n\n2. Second table footnote text: In the second table's footnote, there is a difference:\n - Image 1: '(1) Efficacy analysis set which consists of all randomized subjects who had at least one post-baseline value for the endpoint, (2) Ranked ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group'\n - Image 2: '(1) Efficacy analysis set which consists of all randomized subjects who had at least one post-baseline value for the endpoint, (2) Ranked ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate'\n Image 2 contains additional text: 'and baseline value as a covariate'\n\n3. All numerical values, headers, table structures, and other text elements appear identical between the two images.\n\n4. The layout, formatting, fonts, and positioning of all elements are the same in both images."

[parmsam-pfizer]

Looks good to me. Once it gets merge and the ECTD repo get's updated I can see if the warnings go away.

[parmsam-pfizer]

Seems fine to me.