Wikidata:Property proposal/maximal incubation period in humans
maximal incubation period in humans edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science
Description | the maximal time between an infection and the onset of disease symptoms in infected humans |
---|---|
Represents | incubation period (Q193566) |
Data type | Point in time |
Domain | infectious disease (Q18123741) |
Allowed values | hour, day, week, month, year |
Allowed units | hour (Q25235), day (Q573), week (Q23387), month (Q5151), year (Q577) |
Example | dengue fever (Q30953) → 8 days, according to Dengue fever and dengue hemorrhagic fever: A review of the history, transmission, treatment, and prevention (Q27680555) |
Source | medical and scientific literature |
Planned use | on items about diseases caused by infectious agents (e.g. subclasses of virus (Q808)), possibly as a qualifier to has cause (P828) statements; this could inform epidemiological models |
Robot and gadget jobs | hopefully at some point, but there are no obvious databases to pull the information from |
See also | minimal incubation period in humans |
- Motivation
The incubation period (Q193566) is an essential parameter of an infectious disease and for any measures against it. It is usually given as a range, so I think it is useful to have it split up into two separate properties for the minimum and maximum, similar to what has been done for temporal range start (P523) and temporal range end (P524). In principle, it could be placed on items about either the infectious agent or the disease caused by it, but the two are typically linked through has cause (P828) statements, for which these two properties could then also act as qualifiers. Neither of the two proposed properties makes sense without the other, so I suggest to discuss them together.
Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine Daniel Mietchen (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion
- Question As a general principle, isn't it usual (and better) to have one property, with two values qualified as minimum and maximum? Or does the potential use of these properties as qualifiers preclude that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what is usual or better in this context, but I asked myself basically the same question and thus looked around a bit for similar properties. I found gestation period (P3063), which is just one and does not seem to have been used to indicate a range, and there are temporal range start (P523) and temporal range end (P524) that come as a pair with the clear purpose of serving to indicate ranges. I would be fine with generic qualifier properties for "minimum"/ "maximum"/ "median" etc. of gestation period (P3063)-style systems, but I guess that discussion is going to be a bigger one, and I'm interested in getting something to work soon — ideally by tomorrow, since I am currently attending a hackathon, where epidemic modelers would like to build on this kind of information (I have a few more property proposals in the pipeline), which is not easily available elsewhere. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- As just stated in the muscle origin/ insertion discussion, I think it would be good to decouple the definition of applies to taxon (P2352) from toxicology, which would also allow it to be used with a more general "incubation period" property, so we would not need one (or two, as per above discussion) specific to humans. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- There is also duration (P2047), but this would have to be added to incubation period (Q193566) or subclasses thereof, and I am not sure whether that's a good approach. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- In any case, if we go for a property that is not specific for humans, we'd have to distinguish between intrinsic incubation period (Q27684128) and extrinsic incubation period (Q27684135). --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm - in general quantity values naturally specify a range with the +- so for something that takes say 2 to 8 days to incubate, you could specify 5 +- 3 and do this with just the one property. I think that would be a reasonable option here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what is usual or better in this context, but I asked myself basically the same question and thus looked around a bit for similar properties. I found gestation period (P3063), which is just one and does not seem to have been used to indicate a range, and there are temporal range start (P523) and temporal range end (P524) that come as a pair with the clear purpose of serving to indicate ranges. I would be fine with generic qualifier properties for "minimum"/ "maximum"/ "median" etc. of gestation period (P3063)-style systems, but I guess that discussion is going to be a bigger one, and I'm interested in getting something to work soon — ideally by tomorrow, since I am currently attending a hackathon, where epidemic modelers would like to build on this kind of information (I have a few more property proposals in the pipeline), which is not easily available elsewhere. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure A case is made to use a single range rather than different properties for maximum and minimum. I am not sure what is best. I will confirm the usefulness of the number. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support along with the "minimum" version. I discussed this in person with Daniel - there are several issues in treating this with the usual quantity range approach: conflation of uncertainty with a real observed range of values, and the fact that the average period is not halfway between the minimum and maximum (though that suggests a need for a third property for the average). ArthurPSmith (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support but 'in humans' out and represent as a qualifier --I9606 (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support - As suggested before, leave 'in humans' out so property can be applied to livestock and pets. Gtsulab (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support and Agree with Above MechQuester (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)