| Literature DB >> 35055511 |
Zhangbo Yang1,2, Jiahao Zhang3, Shanxing Gao4, Hui Wang4.
Abstract
The spread of viruses essentially occurs through the interaction and contact between people, which is closely related to the network of interpersonal relationships. Based on the epidemiological investigations of 1218 COVID-19 cases in eight areas of China, we use text analysis, social network analysis and visualization methods to construct a dynamic contact network of the epidemic. We analyze the corresponding demographic characteristics, network indicators, and structural characteristics of this network. We found that more than 65% of cases are likely to be infected by a strong relationship, and nearly 40% of cases have family members infected at the same time. The overall connectivity of the contact network is low, but there are still some clustered infections. In terms of the degree distribution, most cases' degrees are concentrated between 0 and 2, which is relatively low, and only a few ones have a higher degree value. The degree distribution also conforms to the power law distribution, indicating the network is a scale-free network. There are 17 cases with a degree greater than 10, and these cluster infections are usually caused by local transmission. The first implication of this research is we find that the COVID-19 spread is closely related to social structures by applying computational sociological methods for infectious disease studies; the second implication is to confirm that text analysis can quickly visualize the spread trajectory at the beginning of an epidemic.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; contact network; dynamic network evolution; social network analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35055511 PMCID: PMC8775888 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19020689
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Contact network indicators.
| Indicator | Definition | Equation | Meaning in Contact Network |
|---|---|---|---|
| Degree Centrality | Number of nodes in the network that are directly connected to a focal node |
| Number of contacts with other patients of a focal patient |
| Closeness Centrality | Proximity of a node to all other nodes in the network |
| Proximity of one patient to other patients, with larger values indicating that the epidemic is spreading with fewer intermediate patients and at a faster rate |
| Betweenness Centrality | The ability of a node to lie on a geodesic path between other pairs of nodes in the network | The ability of a patient to act as a bridge in the transmission of the virus, such as the position of B in an A-B-C transmission route | |
| PageRank Scores | The centrality of a node in the whole network rather than ego network by iterative computation |
| The degree to which a patient is central to the whole contact network |
| Number of component | A sub-network of a network in which there are paths between any nodes, but there is no any connections between other sub-networks | — | The more components, the sparser the contact network |
| Density | How closely the network is connected |
| In a low-density contact network, virus spread becomes difficulty |
Gender and infection source of contact networks in eight regions of China.
| Variables | Items | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 546 | 50.32% |
| Female | 539 | 49.68% | |
| Infection source | Inside region | 642 | 57.17% |
| Outside region | 481 | 42.83% |
Infection route of contact networks in eight regions of China.
| Variables | Items | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a possibility of being infected by a stranger? | Yes | 684 | 64.65% |
| No | 374 | 35.35% | |
| Is there a possibility of being infected by weak ties? | Yes | 461 | 43.57% |
| No | 597 | 56.43% | |
| Is there a possibility of being infected by strong ties? | Yes | 695 | 65.69% |
| No | 363 | 34.31% | |
| Is there a family member being infected? | Yes | 418 | 39.62% |
| No | 637 | 60.38% |
Figure 1Age distribution of COVID-19 cases in eight regions of China.
Figure 2Change of COVID-19 infection by different ties in eight regions of China.
Figure 3Dynamic contact networks of COVID-19 cases in eight regions of China. (a) Dynamic network of Gansu. (b) Dynamic network of Guizhou. (c) Dynamic network of Hainan. (d) Dynamic network of Heilongjiang. (e) Dynamic network of Inner Mongolia. (f) Dynamic network of Shanxi. (g) Dynamic network of Tianjin. (h) Dynamic network of Yunnan.
Contact network indicators.
| Variables | Areas | Mean | S. D. | Min. | Max. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Degree centrality | Gansu | 0.867 | 1.309 | 0 | 6 |
| Guizhou | 1.288 | 2.241 | 0 | 10 | |
| Hainan | 1.506 | 1.777 | 0 | 6 | |
| Heilongjiang | 0.340 | 0.985 | 0 | 5 | |
| Inner Mongolia | 0.722 | 0.996 | 0 | 3 | |
| Shanxi | 0.681 | 0.783 | 0 | 3 | |
| Tianjin | 2.339 | 3.517 | 0 | 24 | |
| Yunnan | 1.345 | 3.187 | 0 | 12 | |
| Closeness centrality | Gansu | 0.304 | 0.391 | 0 | 1 |
| Guizhou | 0.412 | 0.457 | 0 | 1 | |
| Hainan | 0.479 | 0.459 | 0 | 1 | |
| Heilongjiang | 0.130 | 0.331 | 0 | 1 | |
| Inner Mongolia | 0.366 | 0.452 | 0 | 1 | |
| Shanxi | 0.426 | 0.448 | 0 | 1 | |
| Tianjin | 0.470 | 0.331 | 0 | 1 | |
| Yunnan | 0.320 | 0.459 | 0 | 1 | |
| Betweenness centrality | Gansu | 0.0002 | 0.001 | 0 | 0.0077 |
| Guizhou | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0 | 0.0043 | |
| Hainan | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0 | 0.0022 | |
| Heilongjiang | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0 | 0.00002 | |
| Inner Mongolia | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0 | 0.0020 | |
| Shanxi | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0 | 0.0039 | |
| Tianjin | 0.001 | 0.005 | 0 | 0.0385 | |
| Yunnan | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0 | 0.0003 | |
| PageRank | Gansu | 0.011 | 0.012 | 0.003 | 0.072 |
| Guizhou | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.002 | 0.064 | |
| Hainan | 0.006 | 0.004 | 0.001 | 0.019 | |
| Heilongjiang | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.014 | |
| Inner Mongolia | 0.014 | 0.012 | 0.004 | 0.049 | |
| Shanxi | 0.021 | 0.017 | 0.005 | 0.053 | |
| Tianjin | 0.008 | 0.007 | 0.001 | 0.046 | |
| Yunnan | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.002 | 0.022 |
Figure 4Distribution of degree centrality.
Results of removing nodes in contact network.
| Indicators | Areas | Original Network | Removing Nodes That Degree ≥ 3 | Removing Nodes That Degree ≥ 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Gansu | 60 | 73 | 66 |
| Guizhou | 97 | 106 | 102 | |
| Hainan | 96 | 98 | 86 | |
| Heilongjiang | 368 | 363 | 362 | |
| Inner Mongolia | 52 | 54 | 52 | |
| Shanxi | 32 | 33 | 34 | |
| Tianjin | 43 | 61 | 53 | |
| Yunnan | 132 | 131 | 128 | |
|
| Gansu | 0.010 | 0.003 | <0.001 |
| Guizhou | 0.009 | 0.003 | 0.002 | |
| Hainan | 0.009 | 0.004 | 0.002 | |
| Heilongjiang | 0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| Inner Mongolia | 0.010 | 0.007 | 0.003 | |
| Shanxi | 0.015 | 0.013 | 0.008 | |
| Tianjin | 0.019 | 0.006 | 0.003 | |
| Yunnan | 0.008 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Figure 5Degree distribution in logarithmic coordinates.