Property talk:P3492

Documentation

• Start a query
• Current uses
• Statistics by class
• Units
• Scale of values
• List of qualifiers
• Count

basic reproduction number
number of infections caused by one infection within an uninfected population

Represents	basic reproduction number (Q901464)
Data type	Quantity
Domain	According to this template: infectious disease (Q18123741) According to statements in the property: infectious disease (Q18123741) or strain (Q855769) When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Allowed values	According to this template: positive rational numbers According to statements in the property: 0 ≤ 𝓧 ≤ 7,000,000,000 When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Allowed units	not applicable
Example	Orthoebolavirus zairense (Q10538943) → 1.51
Source	medical and scientific literature (note: this information should be moved to a property statement; use property source website for the property (P1896))
Robot and gadget jobs	hopefully at some point, but there are no obvious databases to pull the information from
Lists	Items with the most statements of this property Count of items by number of statements (chart) Items with the most statements Items with the fewest statements Count of items by number of sitelinks (chart) Items with the most sitelinks Items with the most sitelinks, but no link to one Wikipedia (sample: Welsh Wikipedia, cywiki) Items with the fewest sitelinks Most linked wikis Items with the most identifier properties Items with no other statements Most recently created items Items with novalue claims Items with unknown value claims Usage history (total) Usage history (main statement) Minimum and maximum Items with highest numeric value Items with lowest numeric value Database reports/Constraint violations/P3492 Map Random list
Proposal discussion	Proposal discussion
Current uses	Total 10 Main statement 9 90% of uses Qualifier 1 10% of uses

[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]

Range from “0” to “7000000000”: values should be in the range from “0” to “7000000000”. (Help)

List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3492#Range, hourly updated report

Units: “novalue”: value unit must be one of listed. (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3492#Units

Scope is as main value (Q54828448): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)

List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3492#Scope, hourly updated report, SPARQL

Type “infectious disease (Q18123741), strain (Q855769)”: item must contain property “instance of (P31), subclass of (P279)” with classes “infectious disease (Q18123741), strain (Q855769)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3492#Type Q18123741, Q855769, SPARQL

How to make the R0 claims precise enough?

Hello @Daniel Mietchen:,

I was looking into how to add R0 properly. R0 is quite a complex concept. This article has a good, recent discussion on the topic, for example.

On Wikidata, I wonder how to best use it; as said by User:Bluerasberry on the property proposal it should have both geographical and chronological qualifiers to be quite precise.

There is a nice discussion about COVID-19 r0 here.

Some points:

• is the range for the R0 the confidence interval of one estimate (from one article, for example) or should it be a kind of combination of R0 estimates from many articles? (I tend to prefer the first)

• using country/localization qualifiers is interesting, but might be misleading, as even for the same country effective R0 changes with time. Maybe end time (P582) and start time (P580)? A second option (but a bit different from original intent) would be using start of covered period (P7103) and end of covered period (P7104). Any thoughts on that?

• would it be better to use it for the virus (as in the example) or for the disease (as in the proposal)?

Anyways, I think that is something that is on Wikipedia and should definitely be here too.

TiagoLubiana (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@TiagoLubiana: In response to your points

1. We should not input our our calculations into Wikidata. Your first method is correct - report values or ranges of values from individual sources. I anticipate that while lots of papers mention ranges, in most cases there will be papers which seem more reliable. Because of this, I expect that we can select a few ranges from a few more respected sources rather than indiscriminately import lots of these values. A calculation or much more interpretation of this to find a true value seems out of scope of Wikidata. I think now there might be two kinds of claims- "Disease in a time range in a location" for some odd newer disease, and "r0 for the world", like perhaps we do not need to update flu every year or by country so long as this familiar disease is in the range r0=1-2. For almost all diseases this will be a number 1-5 and we will only be specific to 0.1.
2. I do not think it is worthwhile to make recommendations about end time (P582) versus start of covered period (P7103) at this time. Instead if someone wants to advance this conversation, they can propose a data model, talk it through a bit on some documentation page, then let anyone do anything. I imagine that we might be able to collect R0 values for 100 diseases, and I am not expecting anyone to have a list to mass import for 1000s of conditions. At this scale, it makes more sense to let individuals try things then analyze and set recommendations later.
3. I am not sure we need to distinguish virus from disease, or I think we can have a mix of both in this proposal. I imagine that sources typically report disease rather than infection, but the property could be used for both. We should encourage people to be careful to indicate the one to which the number refers.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Hello, Lane, thank you for your response. I agree with you, more usage would be key to set proper recommendations. I will play around with this a little bit, then, and try to add at least what is on Wikidata. I will be documenting whatever I do at User:TiagoLubiana/R0 for now, and then may move it somewhere else if needed. TiagoLubiana (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)