| Literature DB >> 27471659 |
Thomas House1, Jonathan M Read2, Leon Danon3, Matthew J Keeling4.
Abstract
The hypothesis of preferential attachment (PA) - whereby better connected individuals make more connections - is hotly debated, particularly in the context of epidemiological networks. The simplest models of PA, for example, are incompatible with the eradication of any disease through population-level control measures such as random vaccination. Typically, evidence has been sought for the presence or absence of preferential attachment via asymptotic power-law behaviour. Here, we present a general statistical method to test directly for evidence of PA in count data and apply this to data for contacts relevant to the spread of respiratory diseases. We find that while standard methods for model selection prefer a form of PA, careful analysis of the best fitting PA models allows for a level of contact heterogeneity that in fact allows control of respiratory diseases. Our approach is based on a flexible but numerically cheap likelihood-based model that could in principle be applied to other integer data where the hypothesis of PA is of interest.Entities:
Keywords: MLE; Phase-type distribution; model selection; spectral methods
Year: 2015 PMID: 27471659 PMCID: PMC4944591 DOI: 10.1140/epjds/s13688-015-0052-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EPJ Data Sci ISSN: 2193-1127 Impact factor: 3.184
Figure 1A model of phases. is the probability of starting in phase a, is the exit rate of phase a, and is the rate of moving from phase a to phase b.
Comparison of models with different numbers of phases, with and without preferential attachment (PA), together with: number of parameters; differences in AIC and BIC values compared to the overall minimum; and the lowest divergent moment for models with PA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1,No) | 1 | 2.2 × 103 | 2.1 × 103 | – |
| (2,No) | 4 | 2.1 × 102 | 1.5 × 102 | – |
| (3,No) | 8 | 1.2 × 102 | 83 | – |
| (4,No) | 13 | 42 | 38 | – |
| (5,No) | 19 | 23 | 58 | – |
| (6,No) | 26 | 27 | 1.1 × 102 | – |
| (1,Yes) | 2 | 1.9 × 102 | 1.1 × 102 | 3 |
| (2,Yes) | 5 | 1.3 × 102 | 72 | 4 |
| (3,Yes) | 9 | 31 |
| 3 |
| (4,Yes) | 14 | 11 | 14 | 3 |
| (5,Yes) | 20 |
| 42 | 3 |
| (6,Yes) | 27 | 9 | 97 | 3 |
Preferred models are shown using square brackets and bold type.
Figure 2The results of likelihood ratio tests on the models. Arrows point towards the model preferred by the likelihood ratio test, with p values shown.
Figure 3Data at different scales versus (left column) model selected using AIC and likelihood ratio tests (right column) model selected using BIC. Models are labelled by the number of phases and whether PA is present. Confidence intervals in the data are calculated using bootstrapping for data and parametric bootstrapping for models.