PMC:7014672 / 9839-12486 JSONTXT

{"project":"LitCovid-PubTator","denotations":[{"id":"147","span":{"begin":107,"end":116},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"148","span":{"begin":93,"end":101},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"149","span":{"begin":343,"end":347},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"152","span":{"begin":1056,"end":1064},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"153","span":{"begin":1199,"end":1207},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"156","span":{"begin":1951,"end":1960},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"157","span":{"begin":2019,"end":2024},"obj":"Species"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A147","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"147","obj":"Tax:2697049"},{"id":"A148","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"148","obj":"MESH:D007239"},{"id":"A149","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"149","obj":"MESH:D012640"},{"id":"A152","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"152","obj":"MESH:D007239"},{"id":"A153","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"153","obj":"MESH:D007239"},{"id":"A156","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"156","obj":"Tax:2697049"},{"id":"A157","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"157","obj":"Tax:9606"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"Tax","uri":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy/"},{"prefix":"MESH","uri":"https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/"},{"prefix":"Gene","uri":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/"},{"prefix":"CVCL","uri":"https://web.expasy.org/cellosaurus/CVCL_"}],"text":"Discussion\nWe characterised the distribution of incubation periods for travellers from Wuhan infected with 2019-nCoV in Wuhan who were reported as cases between 20 and 28 January 2020. The study provides empirical evidence to back reports on a familial cluster where five family members developed symptoms 3 to 6 days after exposure [10], and fits within the range for the incubation period of 0 to 14 days assumed by the WHO and of 2 to 12 days assumed by the ECDC [11]. Our estimate of the mean incubation period is longer than the value of 5.2 days based on 10 cases [12], and 4.8 days (range: 2–11) based on 16 travellers between Wuhan and Guangdong [13]. The latter study is restricted to travellers with a 3-day exposure window. Repeating our analysis with only the 25 visitors to Wuhan who had a closed exposure window, leads to a mean incubation period of 4.5 days (CI: 3.7–5.6) which is more in line with the studies above, but the 95th percentile drops to 8.0 days (CI: 6.3–11.8).\nIn our analysis, we assumed a uniform prior probability of being infected during the period of stay in Wuhan. Since the epidemic was developing during that time period, it is more likely that travellers were infected towards the end rather than the beginning of their stay. This might produce a slight bias towards longer incubation periods, so the estimated upper limit of 11.1 days could be considered conservative.\nThe travellers in this study represent a selective sample of the reported cases. We found travellers to be more often male and younger than the cases reported in [12]. The numbers are too small to detect systematic differences in incubation time with age or sex. Because we only have information on confirmed cases, there is likely a bias towards more severe cases in areas with early awareness and a well-functioning healthcare system. As the epidemic continues, it remains important to collect more information on the incubation periods of 2019-nCoV cases with older ages, with underlying morbidity, who are women or who have mild symptoms.\nThere are various choices one can make about the parametric form of the incubation period distribution. The results with the three often-used forms we report here suggest that there is little impact on the mean and dispersion of the incubation periods. Of these three, the lognormal distribution assigns higher probabilities to longer incubation periods. Although we found that this distribution provided a poorer description of the data than the Weibull and the gamma distributions, it is prudent not to dismiss the possibility of incubation periods up to 14 days at this stage of the epidemic."}

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-FMA-UBERON","denotations":[{"id":"T1","span":{"begin":226,"end":230},"obj":"Body_part"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A1","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T1","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma25056"}],"text":"Discussion\nWe characterised the distribution of incubation periods for travellers from Wuhan infected with 2019-nCoV in Wuhan who were reported as cases between 20 and 28 January 2020. The study provides empirical evidence to back reports on a familial cluster where five family members developed symptoms 3 to 6 days after exposure [10], and fits within the range for the incubation period of 0 to 14 days assumed by the WHO and of 2 to 12 days assumed by the ECDC [11]. Our estimate of the mean incubation period is longer than the value of 5.2 days based on 10 cases [12], and 4.8 days (range: 2–11) based on 16 travellers between Wuhan and Guangdong [13]. The latter study is restricted to travellers with a 3-day exposure window. Repeating our analysis with only the 25 visitors to Wuhan who had a closed exposure window, leads to a mean incubation period of 4.5 days (CI: 3.7–5.6) which is more in line with the studies above, but the 95th percentile drops to 8.0 days (CI: 6.3–11.8).\nIn our analysis, we assumed a uniform prior probability of being infected during the period of stay in Wuhan. Since the epidemic was developing during that time period, it is more likely that travellers were infected towards the end rather than the beginning of their stay. This might produce a slight bias towards longer incubation periods, so the estimated upper limit of 11.1 days could be considered conservative.\nThe travellers in this study represent a selective sample of the reported cases. We found travellers to be more often male and younger than the cases reported in [12]. The numbers are too small to detect systematic differences in incubation time with age or sex. Because we only have information on confirmed cases, there is likely a bias towards more severe cases in areas with early awareness and a well-functioning healthcare system. As the epidemic continues, it remains important to collect more information on the incubation periods of 2019-nCoV cases with older ages, with underlying morbidity, who are women or who have mild symptoms.\nThere are various choices one can make about the parametric form of the incubation period distribution. The results with the three often-used forms we report here suggest that there is little impact on the mean and dispersion of the incubation periods. Of these three, the lognormal distribution assigns higher probabilities to longer incubation periods. Although we found that this distribution provided a poorer description of the data than the Weibull and the gamma distributions, it is prudent not to dismiss the possibility of incubation periods up to 14 days at this stage of the epidemic."}

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-CLO","denotations":[{"id":"T36","span":{"begin":242,"end":243},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"},{"id":"T37","span":{"begin":467,"end":469},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0053733"},{"id":"T38","span":{"begin":599,"end":601},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0053733"},{"id":"T39","span":{"begin":710,"end":713},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001577"},{"id":"T40","span":{"begin":801,"end":802},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"},{"id":"T41","span":{"begin":836,"end":837},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"},{"id":"T42","span":{"begin":1019,"end":1020},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"},{"id":"T43","span":{"begin":1284,"end":1285},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"},{"id":"T44","span":{"begin":1448,"end":1449},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"},{"id":"T45","span":{"begin":1527,"end":1531},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0003101"},{"id":"T46","span":{"begin":1527,"end":1531},"obj":"http://www.ebi.ac.uk/efo/EFO_0000970"},{"id":"T47","span":{"begin":1741,"end":1742},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"},{"id":"T48","span":{"begin":1808,"end":1809},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"},{"id":"T49","span":{"begin":2457,"end":2458},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"}],"text":"Discussion\nWe characterised the distribution of incubation periods for travellers from Wuhan infected with 2019-nCoV in Wuhan who were reported as cases between 20 and 28 January 2020. The study provides empirical evidence to back reports on a familial cluster where five family members developed symptoms 3 to 6 days after exposure [10], and fits within the range for the incubation period of 0 to 14 days assumed by the WHO and of 2 to 12 days assumed by the ECDC [11]. Our estimate of the mean incubation period is longer than the value of 5.2 days based on 10 cases [12], and 4.8 days (range: 2–11) based on 16 travellers between Wuhan and Guangdong [13]. The latter study is restricted to travellers with a 3-day exposure window. Repeating our analysis with only the 25 visitors to Wuhan who had a closed exposure window, leads to a mean incubation period of 4.5 days (CI: 3.7–5.6) which is more in line with the studies above, but the 95th percentile drops to 8.0 days (CI: 6.3–11.8).\nIn our analysis, we assumed a uniform prior probability of being infected during the period of stay in Wuhan. Since the epidemic was developing during that time period, it is more likely that travellers were infected towards the end rather than the beginning of their stay. This might produce a slight bias towards longer incubation periods, so the estimated upper limit of 11.1 days could be considered conservative.\nThe travellers in this study represent a selective sample of the reported cases. We found travellers to be more often male and younger than the cases reported in [12]. The numbers are too small to detect systematic differences in incubation time with age or sex. Because we only have information on confirmed cases, there is likely a bias towards more severe cases in areas with early awareness and a well-functioning healthcare system. As the epidemic continues, it remains important to collect more information on the incubation periods of 2019-nCoV cases with older ages, with underlying morbidity, who are women or who have mild symptoms.\nThere are various choices one can make about the parametric form of the incubation period distribution. The results with the three often-used forms we report here suggest that there is little impact on the mean and dispersion of the incubation periods. Of these three, the lognormal distribution assigns higher probabilities to longer incubation periods. Although we found that this distribution provided a poorer description of the data than the Weibull and the gamma distributions, it is prudent not to dismiss the possibility of incubation periods up to 14 days at this stage of the epidemic."}

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-CHEBI","denotations":[{"id":"T22","span":{"begin":1527,"end":1531},"obj":"Chemical"},{"id":"T23","span":{"begin":2515,"end":2520},"obj":"Chemical"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A22","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T22","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_30780"},{"id":"A23","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T23","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_30212"}],"text":"Discussion\nWe characterised the distribution of incubation periods for travellers from Wuhan infected with 2019-nCoV in Wuhan who were reported as cases between 20 and 28 January 2020. The study provides empirical evidence to back reports on a familial cluster where five family members developed symptoms 3 to 6 days after exposure [10], and fits within the range for the incubation period of 0 to 14 days assumed by the WHO and of 2 to 12 days assumed by the ECDC [11]. Our estimate of the mean incubation period is longer than the value of 5.2 days based on 10 cases [12], and 4.8 days (range: 2–11) based on 16 travellers between Wuhan and Guangdong [13]. The latter study is restricted to travellers with a 3-day exposure window. Repeating our analysis with only the 25 visitors to Wuhan who had a closed exposure window, leads to a mean incubation period of 4.5 days (CI: 3.7–5.6) which is more in line with the studies above, but the 95th percentile drops to 8.0 days (CI: 6.3–11.8).\nIn our analysis, we assumed a uniform prior probability of being infected during the period of stay in Wuhan. Since the epidemic was developing during that time period, it is more likely that travellers were infected towards the end rather than the beginning of their stay. This might produce a slight bias towards longer incubation periods, so the estimated upper limit of 11.1 days could be considered conservative.\nThe travellers in this study represent a selective sample of the reported cases. We found travellers to be more often male and younger than the cases reported in [12]. The numbers are too small to detect systematic differences in incubation time with age or sex. Because we only have information on confirmed cases, there is likely a bias towards more severe cases in areas with early awareness and a well-functioning healthcare system. As the epidemic continues, it remains important to collect more information on the incubation periods of 2019-nCoV cases with older ages, with underlying morbidity, who are women or who have mild symptoms.\nThere are various choices one can make about the parametric form of the incubation period distribution. The results with the three often-used forms we report here suggest that there is little impact on the mean and dispersion of the incubation periods. Of these three, the lognormal distribution assigns higher probabilities to longer incubation periods. Although we found that this distribution provided a poorer description of the data than the Weibull and the gamma distributions, it is prudent not to dismiss the possibility of incubation periods up to 14 days at this stage of the epidemic."}

{"project":"LitCovid-sentences","denotations":[{"id":"T99","span":{"begin":0,"end":10},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T100","span":{"begin":11,"end":184},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T101","span":{"begin":185,"end":471},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T102","span":{"begin":472,"end":596},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T103","span":{"begin":597,"end":659},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T104","span":{"begin":660,"end":734},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T105","span":{"begin":735,"end":877},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T106","span":{"begin":878,"end":979},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T107","span":{"begin":980,"end":990},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T108","span":{"begin":991,"end":1100},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T109","span":{"begin":1101,"end":1264},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T110","span":{"begin":1265,"end":1408},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T111","span":{"begin":1409,"end":1489},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T112","span":{"begin":1490,"end":1576},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T113","span":{"begin":1577,"end":1671},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T114","span":{"begin":1672,"end":1845},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T115","span":{"begin":1846,"end":2051},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T116","span":{"begin":2052,"end":2155},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T117","span":{"begin":2156,"end":2304},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T118","span":{"begin":2305,"end":2406},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T119","span":{"begin":2407,"end":2647},"obj":"Sentence"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"_base","uri":"http://pubannotation.org/ontology/tao.owl#"}],"text":"Discussion\nWe characterised the distribution of incubation periods for travellers from Wuhan infected with 2019-nCoV in Wuhan who were reported as cases between 20 and 28 January 2020. The study provides empirical evidence to back reports on a familial cluster where five family members developed symptoms 3 to 6 days after exposure [10], and fits within the range for the incubation period of 0 to 14 days assumed by the WHO and of 2 to 12 days assumed by the ECDC [11]. Our estimate of the mean incubation period is longer than the value of 5.2 days based on 10 cases [12], and 4.8 days (range: 2–11) based on 16 travellers between Wuhan and Guangdong [13]. The latter study is restricted to travellers with a 3-day exposure window. Repeating our analysis with only the 25 visitors to Wuhan who had a closed exposure window, leads to a mean incubation period of 4.5 days (CI: 3.7–5.6) which is more in line with the studies above, but the 95th percentile drops to 8.0 days (CI: 6.3–11.8).\nIn our analysis, we assumed a uniform prior probability of being infected during the period of stay in Wuhan. Since the epidemic was developing during that time period, it is more likely that travellers were infected towards the end rather than the beginning of their stay. This might produce a slight bias towards longer incubation periods, so the estimated upper limit of 11.1 days could be considered conservative.\nThe travellers in this study represent a selective sample of the reported cases. We found travellers to be more often male and younger than the cases reported in [12]. The numbers are too small to detect systematic differences in incubation time with age or sex. Because we only have information on confirmed cases, there is likely a bias towards more severe cases in areas with early awareness and a well-functioning healthcare system. As the epidemic continues, it remains important to collect more information on the incubation periods of 2019-nCoV cases with older ages, with underlying morbidity, who are women or who have mild symptoms.\nThere are various choices one can make about the parametric form of the incubation period distribution. The results with the three often-used forms we report here suggest that there is little impact on the mean and dispersion of the incubation periods. Of these three, the lognormal distribution assigns higher probabilities to longer incubation periods. Although we found that this distribution provided a poorer description of the data than the Weibull and the gamma distributions, it is prudent not to dismiss the possibility of incubation periods up to 14 days at this stage of the epidemic."}

{"project":"LitCovid-PMC-OGER-BB","denotations":[{"id":"T32","span":{"begin":107,"end":116},"obj":"SP_7"},{"id":"T31","span":{"begin":226,"end":230},"obj":"UBERON:0001137"},{"id":"T30","span":{"begin":1951,"end":1960},"obj":"SP_7"}],"text":"Discussion\nWe characterised the distribution of incubation periods for travellers from Wuhan infected with 2019-nCoV in Wuhan who were reported as cases between 20 and 28 January 2020. The study provides empirical evidence to back reports on a familial cluster where five family members developed symptoms 3 to 6 days after exposure [10], and fits within the range for the incubation period of 0 to 14 days assumed by the WHO and of 2 to 12 days assumed by the ECDC [11]. Our estimate of the mean incubation period is longer than the value of 5.2 days based on 10 cases [12], and 4.8 days (range: 2–11) based on 16 travellers between Wuhan and Guangdong [13]. The latter study is restricted to travellers with a 3-day exposure window. Repeating our analysis with only the 25 visitors to Wuhan who had a closed exposure window, leads to a mean incubation period of 4.5 days (CI: 3.7–5.6) which is more in line with the studies above, but the 95th percentile drops to 8.0 days (CI: 6.3–11.8).\nIn our analysis, we assumed a uniform prior probability of being infected during the period of stay in Wuhan. Since the epidemic was developing during that time period, it is more likely that travellers were infected towards the end rather than the beginning of their stay. This might produce a slight bias towards longer incubation periods, so the estimated upper limit of 11.1 days could be considered conservative.\nThe travellers in this study represent a selective sample of the reported cases. We found travellers to be more often male and younger than the cases reported in [12]. The numbers are too small to detect systematic differences in incubation time with age or sex. Because we only have information on confirmed cases, there is likely a bias towards more severe cases in areas with early awareness and a well-functioning healthcare system. As the epidemic continues, it remains important to collect more information on the incubation periods of 2019-nCoV cases with older ages, with underlying morbidity, who are women or who have mild symptoms.\nThere are various choices one can make about the parametric form of the incubation period distribution. The results with the three often-used forms we report here suggest that there is little impact on the mean and dispersion of the incubation periods. Of these three, the lognormal distribution assigns higher probabilities to longer incubation periods. Although we found that this distribution provided a poorer description of the data than the Weibull and the gamma distributions, it is prudent not to dismiss the possibility of incubation periods up to 14 days at this stage of the epidemic."}

{"project":"2_test","denotations":[{"id":"32046819-31986261-29333945","span":{"begin":334,"end":336},"obj":"31986261"},{"id":"32046819-31995857-29333946","span":{"begin":571,"end":573},"obj":"31995857"},{"id":"32046819-31995857-29333947","span":{"begin":1572,"end":1574},"obj":"31995857"}],"text":"Discussion\nWe characterised the distribution of incubation periods for travellers from Wuhan infected with 2019-nCoV in Wuhan who were reported as cases between 20 and 28 January 2020. The study provides empirical evidence to back reports on a familial cluster where five family members developed symptoms 3 to 6 days after exposure [10], and fits within the range for the incubation period of 0 to 14 days assumed by the WHO and of 2 to 12 days assumed by the ECDC [11]. Our estimate of the mean incubation period is longer than the value of 5.2 days based on 10 cases [12], and 4.8 days (range: 2–11) based on 16 travellers between Wuhan and Guangdong [13]. The latter study is restricted to travellers with a 3-day exposure window. Repeating our analysis with only the 25 visitors to Wuhan who had a closed exposure window, leads to a mean incubation period of 4.5 days (CI: 3.7–5.6) which is more in line with the studies above, but the 95th percentile drops to 8.0 days (CI: 6.3–11.8).\nIn our analysis, we assumed a uniform prior probability of being infected during the period of stay in Wuhan. Since the epidemic was developing during that time period, it is more likely that travellers were infected towards the end rather than the beginning of their stay. This might produce a slight bias towards longer incubation periods, so the estimated upper limit of 11.1 days could be considered conservative.\nThe travellers in this study represent a selective sample of the reported cases. We found travellers to be more often male and younger than the cases reported in [12]. The numbers are too small to detect systematic differences in incubation time with age or sex. Because we only have information on confirmed cases, there is likely a bias towards more severe cases in areas with early awareness and a well-functioning healthcare system. As the epidemic continues, it remains important to collect more information on the incubation periods of 2019-nCoV cases with older ages, with underlying morbidity, who are women or who have mild symptoms.\nThere are various choices one can make about the parametric form of the incubation period distribution. The results with the three often-used forms we report here suggest that there is little impact on the mean and dispersion of the incubation periods. Of these three, the lognormal distribution assigns higher probabilities to longer incubation periods. Although we found that this distribution provided a poorer description of the data than the Weibull and the gamma distributions, it is prudent not to dismiss the possibility of incubation periods up to 14 days at this stage of the epidemic."}

{"project":"MyTest","denotations":[{"id":"32046819-31986261-29333945","span":{"begin":334,"end":336},"obj":"31986261"},{"id":"32046819-31995857-29333946","span":{"begin":571,"end":573},"obj":"31995857"},{"id":"32046819-31995857-29333947","span":{"begin":1572,"end":1574},"obj":"31995857"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"_base","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/testbase"},{"prefix":"UniProtKB","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/"},{"prefix":"uniprot","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/"}],"text":"Discussion\nWe characterised the distribution of incubation periods for travellers from Wuhan infected with 2019-nCoV in Wuhan who were reported as cases between 20 and 28 January 2020. The study provides empirical evidence to back reports on a familial cluster where five family members developed symptoms 3 to 6 days after exposure [10], and fits within the range for the incubation period of 0 to 14 days assumed by the WHO and of 2 to 12 days assumed by the ECDC [11]. Our estimate of the mean incubation period is longer than the value of 5.2 days based on 10 cases [12], and 4.8 days (range: 2–11) based on 16 travellers between Wuhan and Guangdong [13]. The latter study is restricted to travellers with a 3-day exposure window. Repeating our analysis with only the 25 visitors to Wuhan who had a closed exposure window, leads to a mean incubation period of 4.5 days (CI: 3.7–5.6) which is more in line with the studies above, but the 95th percentile drops to 8.0 days (CI: 6.3–11.8).\nIn our analysis, we assumed a uniform prior probability of being infected during the period of stay in Wuhan. Since the epidemic was developing during that time period, it is more likely that travellers were infected towards the end rather than the beginning of their stay. This might produce a slight bias towards longer incubation periods, so the estimated upper limit of 11.1 days could be considered conservative.\nThe travellers in this study represent a selective sample of the reported cases. We found travellers to be more often male and younger than the cases reported in [12]. The numbers are too small to detect systematic differences in incubation time with age or sex. Because we only have information on confirmed cases, there is likely a bias towards more severe cases in areas with early awareness and a well-functioning healthcare system. As the epidemic continues, it remains important to collect more information on the incubation periods of 2019-nCoV cases with older ages, with underlying morbidity, who are women or who have mild symptoms.\nThere are various choices one can make about the parametric form of the incubation period distribution. The results with the three often-used forms we report here suggest that there is little impact on the mean and dispersion of the incubation periods. Of these three, the lognormal distribution assigns higher probabilities to longer incubation periods. Although we found that this distribution provided a poorer description of the data than the Weibull and the gamma distributions, it is prudent not to dismiss the possibility of incubation periods up to 14 days at this stage of the epidemic."}