PMC:7029158 / 16242-16774
Annnotations
LitCovid-PD-CLO
| Id | Subject | Object | Predicate | Lexical cue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T83 | 62-63 | http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020 | denotes | a |
| T84 | 129-130 | http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020 | denotes | a |
| T85 | 194-197 | http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0051582 | denotes | has |
| T86 | 208-209 | http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020 | denotes | a |
| T87 | 242-244 | http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001022 | denotes | Li |
| T88 | 242-244 | http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0007314 | denotes | Li |
| T89 | 261-263 | http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001022 | denotes | Li |
| T90 | 261-263 | http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0007314 | denotes | Li |
| T91 | 292-293 | http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020 | denotes | a |
| T92 | 458-462 | http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0008416 | denotes | peer |
| T93 | 458-462 | http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0050081 | denotes | peer |
LitCovid-PD-CHEBI
| Id | Subject | Object | Predicate | Lexical cue | chebi_id |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T31 | 242-244 | Chemical | denotes | Li | http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_30145 |
| T32 | 261-263 | Chemical | denotes | Li | http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_30145 |
LitCovid-PD-GO-BP
| Id | Subject | Object | Predicate | Lexical cue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T19 | 64-76 | http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/GO_0000003 | denotes | reproduction |
| T20 | 210-222 | http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/GO_0000003 | denotes | reproduction |
| T21 | 489-501 | http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/GO_0000003 | denotes | reproduction |
LitCovid-sentences
| Id | Subject | Object | Predicate | Lexical cue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T103 | 0-171 | Sentence | denotes | In our previous article (Tang et al., 2020), we had estimated a reproduction number of 6.47 (95% CI 5.71–7.23), which represents a higher value than those so far computed. |
| T104 | 172-532 | Sentence | denotes | For instance, the WHO has estimated a reproduction number of 1.4–2.5, Li and colleagues (Li et al., 2020) have computed a slightly higher value of 2.2 (95% CI 1.4 to 3.9), while in several other mathematical models which have been so far devised and released as pre-prints or undergone peer-review and published, the reproduction number varies from 1.3 to 4.7. |