# CT2002 - LBORRESU value not found in 'Unit' extensible codelist when incorporating define.xml **URL:** \ **Category:** SDTM\ **Created:** [February 16, 2016, 6:21pm UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/ct2002-lborresu-value-not-found-in-unit-extensible-codelist-when-incorporating-define-xml/915 "2016-02-16T18:21:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mdigian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85e7bf/32.png) [@mdigian](https://forum.certara.com/u/mdigian)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 6:38pm UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/ct2002-lborresu-value-not-found-in-unit-extensible-codelist-when-incorporating-define-xml/915/1 "2016-02-16T18:38:23Z")
The idea is that **CT2002** will always get triggered just so the FDA knows you’ve extended it (either in data only, or both data and define.xml). **SD0037** would then fire if you don’t include the value in your define.xml. If there is no issue for SD0037 for this variable, then it would appear you placed the term in the Define.xml codelist appropriately. Of course, even if you extend it correctly in your define.xml, when it hits a regulatory review, human eyes like myself may determine that you extended a codelist with a **_synonym_** of a value already present. In that case, the **WARNING** would be implicity upgraded to an **ERROR**. If the extended value is truely unique/value add/protocol specific, then implicity a person decides the **WARNING** downgrades to an **INFO**. As sofware and term matching becomes increasingly sophisticated and reliable, the person could be replaced by a machine 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![agarrett](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/50afbb/32.png) [@agarrett](https://forum.certara.com/u/agarrett)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 8:04pm UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/ct2002-lborresu-value-not-found-in-unit-extensible-codelist-when-incorporating-define-xml/915/2 "2016-02-16T20:04:04Z")
Thanks - that answered my question perfectly! ---
**Author:** ![agarrett](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/50afbb/32.png) [@agarrett](https://forum.certara.com/u/agarrett)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 8:08pm UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/ct2002-lborresu-value-not-found-in-unit-extensible-codelist-when-incorporating-define-xml/915/3 "2016-02-16T20:08:47Z")
Thanks - you answered my question perfectly! ---
**Author:** ![XML4Pharma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/b2d939/32.png) [@XML4Pharma](https://forum.certara.com/u/XML4Pharma)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 9:22pm UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/ct2002-lborresu-value-not-found-in-unit-extensible-codelist-when-incorporating-define-xml/915/4 "2016-02-16T21:22:40Z")
The define.xml v.2.0 specification states (4.3. Controlled Terminology Definitions): “_If a Define-XML CodeList element includes definitions of terms that are not included in the published list, then the def:ExtendedValue attribute should be set to “Yes” (on CodeListItem or EnumeratedItem) regardless of whether or not the codelist is extensible_”. The def:Extended attribute has exactly been designed to let the reviewer know that the codelist has been extended with that specific value or code. So if you correctly added the attribute, AND the codelist is “extensible”, none of the rules CT2002 nor SD0037 should trigger, as there is no violation AND the reviewer already knows about the extended value from the define.xml (his/her first source of information). Didn’t you (agarrett) forget to add the def:ExtendedValue=“Yes” to the “EnumeratedItem” or “CodeListItem”? ---
**Author:** ![lexjansen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/cc9497/32.png) [@lexjansen](https://forum.certara.com/u/lexjansen)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 10:30pm UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/ct2002-lborresu-value-not-found-in-unit-extensible-codelist-when-incorporating-define-xml/915/5 "2016-02-16T22:30:22Z")
I think what Mike is pointing at, is this fragment from the Define-XML specification 4.3: Sponsors may add to extensible codelists **as long as they are not adding duplicates or synonyms of existing terms**. Unfortunately a computer would not be able to check thuis violation. ---
**Author:** ![mdigian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85e7bf/32.png) [@mdigian](https://forum.certara.com/u/mdigian)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 10:55pm UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/ct2002-lborresu-value-not-found-in-unit-extensible-codelist-when-incorporating-define-xml/915/6 "2016-02-16T22:55:13Z")
More importantly to Joseph’s concern, Pinnacle 21 Community automatically sets the extended atribute flag (def:ExtendedValue=“Yes”) for a codelist that has extended terms. Amy, if you use Community Define generator, you will get that for free. The extended codelists i believe are shown with an asterisk in the Browser via the style sheet. ---
**Author:** ![agarrett](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/50afbb/32.png) [@agarrett](https://forum.certara.com/u/agarrett)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 6:21pm UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/ct2002-lborresu-value-not-found-in-unit-extensible-codelist-when-incorporating-define-xml/915/7 "2016-02-16T18:21:26Z")
When validating SDTM and inlcuding define.XML, should we expect warning to go away regarding values not being in extensible codelists? I’ve confirmed that the define does inlcude all unit codes in the sdtm data. Its true that the value is not technically in the extensible codelist (as provided by CT docs), but it is the define.xml so I was just wondering how the FDA would know that the extensible codelist has in fact been “extended” in the define.XML. This applies to any CT2002 warning. Thanks! Amy