In Article <3dc8p7$i6o at martha.utk.edu> ctfaulkn at UTKVX.UTCC.UTK.EDU
writes:
- Relative pathogenicity is defined as:
-
- number of clinical cases resulting from infection
------------------------------------------------------------------
-total number of infections in the population under investigation
-
- Relative virulence is defined as:
-
- number of clinical cases w/serious manifestations (mortality)
------------------------------------------------------------------
- total number of clinical cases resulting from infection
The problem I have with these definitions are that they are somewhat
subjective (what is a 'clinical' case; what constitutes 'serious')
and that, as far as I am concerned, they describe a continuum. They
also rely on population phenomena which may be because they are
from an epidemiology textbook.
-Is the difference in definitions a discipinlary one? I've given the
-citation for one epidemiology textbook definition, is there one for
-parasitology?
The definitions I have been using are taken from Gladstone's chapter
in Florey's 'General Pathology, 4th Edition'. I find that they
simplify the terminology.
Incidentally, for the past two days it has just been the two of us
going back and forth over these definitions. Doesn't anyone else out
there have an opinion?
Graham
________________________________________________________
C. Graham Clark, Ph.D.
Laboratory of Parasitic Diseases,
National Institutes of Health,
Bethesda, MD 20892
Ph.: 301-496-4740
FAX: 301-402-4941
e-mail: cge at cu.nih.gov
