Talk:Q1441305
Autodescription — clinical sign (Q1441305)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “clinical sign” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
clinical sign⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
Union and disjoint queries
- Instances of clinical sign (Q1441305)
that are instances of none of the classes phenotype (Q25203551) and endotype (Q5376560) [1]
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Should not be a subclass of symptom[edit]
A symptom is experienced by the patient, such as a high fever. There are medical signs that are not symptoms, for example arterial hypertension (Q41861). symptom (Q169872) is already (correctly) a subclass of medical sign, so medical sign should not be a subclass of symptom (Q169872). I propose that it should it be a subclass of physiological condition (Q7189713). Jefft0 (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good idea. --Infovarius (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Updated. Jefft0 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Is clinical sign (Q1441305) bad or just a sign?[edit]
The English has "medical sign". I suppose that is not necessarily a bad thing for a subject, e.g. to have a BMI of some value. German describes the item with the word "Krankheitssymptome" and the Norwegians has the label "Sykdomstegn" while the French has "maladie" in the description. All these languages indicate a sign of disease (With my language schooling Krankheit, sykdom, maladie all means disease) and this is not the case with the English and the Swedish (Fynd is just "finding"). The scope of this item should be clarified, and clarified across languages. Also in relation to physiological condition (Q7189713). For instance, where should ventricular-brain ratio (Q17141282) go? I have presently put it at physiological condition (Q7189713), but why not clinical sign (Q1441305)? And the items should probably be equivalent to items in other ontologies, such as MeSH. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
difference from symptom (Q169872)?[edit]
d1g (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
sign (+symptom?)[edit]
Should we move some sitelinks (like en, uk, es) to symptom or sign (Q112965645) as more general? Infovarius (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- If this is the "medical sign" pages part, and the "signs and symptoms" pages are already here, it doesn't make sense to move to a separate item if the evaluated wikis don't have a corresponding "symptom" page. For example, enwiki has only one, which could be either clinical sign (Q1441305) or symptom (Q169872), so if it's already here, there's no need to move to another item. Mandorake (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sitelinks linkness is on one hand. The correctness of model (match of sitelinks to item sense) is on the other. Now en-article looks inappropriate here. --Infovarius (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- That's the question, "looks inappropriate" is subjective, considering that the en.wiki version addresses the exact same subject as items clinical sign (Q1441305) and symptom (Q169872). It would be necessary to separate only if there were three articles on the en.wiki on this subject, "signals", "symptoms" and "signals and symptoms", but there are not. Mandorake (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sitelinks linkness is on one hand. The correctness of model (match of sitelinks to item sense) is on the other. Now en-article looks inappropriate here. --Infovarius (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)