Wikidata:Property proposal/minimal incubation period in humans
minimal incubation period in humans edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science
| Description | the minimal 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) → 3 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 | maximal 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
Support - though should the "in humans" bit of this be a qualifier or default and allow other animal hosts to be used with appropriate qualifiers? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)- I would prefer the "in humans" bit expressed by a qualifier. ChristianKl (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure. I assumed that most of the medical properties were specific to humans, and there was no need to design them to accommodate use for other species. If that is the case, then I support. If it is already routine to plan for these properties to be robust enough for reuse, then perhaps the other commenters are right to request a change here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support but agree that 'in humans' should be a qualifier. --I9606 (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Daniel Mietchen: Would you be alright with not having "in humans" in the name? ChristianKl (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support - As suggested before, leave 'in humans' out so property can be applied to livestock and pets. Gtsulab (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support and Agree with Above MechQuester (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
