| Literature DB >> 35712301 |
Zihao Wang1, Yue Zhuang1, Chao Fan1.
Abstract
Background: Due to the continual recurrence of COVID-19 in urban areas, it is important to know more about the evolution of the epidemic within this setting to mitigate the risk of the situation getting worse. As the virus spreads through human society, the social networks of confirmed cases can provide us with crucial new insights on this question.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Nanjing; contact tracing data; social network; urban epidemic
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35712301 PMCID: PMC9195001 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.879340
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Social network measures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole network | Number of nodes | The number of nodes in the network | The number of patients in the transmission network | |
| Number of edges | The number of edges in the network | The number of epidemiological contacts among patients | ||
| Network density | The number of existing ties between nodes, divided by the number of possible ties |
| The number of existing epidemiological contacts among patients, divided by the number of possible epidemiological contacts | |
| Mean path length | The average of the shortest path length between all possible node pairs |
| The average epidemiological contact distance between the source and target patients | |
| Nodes and components | Outdegree centrality | The number of links to target nodes from a source node |
| The number of secondary patients of a source patient |
| Indegree centrality | The number of incoming links to a node from source nodes |
| The number of epidemiological contacts incident upon a patient from source patients | |
| 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 | |
| Network component | The islands of interlinked nodes that are disconnected from other nodes of the network | – | Connected structures with interlinked patients, but disconnected from other similar components in the network | |
| Social relations | Family | – | – | Family relationships between patients including parentage, couple and other kin |
| Community life | – | – | The epidemiological contacts occurring in community life | |
| Colleague and friend | – | – | Colleague or friend relationships between patients |
Figure 1The change in the number of confirmed cases over time.
Figure 2Age and gender distribution of confirmed cases.
The calculation result of whole network measures.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Number of nodes | 165 |
| Number of edges | 132 |
| Network density | 0.005 |
| Mean path length | 1.600 |
Summary statistics of node attributes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outdegree | 0~7 | 0.800 (1.266) | 0 (95, 57.58), 1 (38, 23.03), 2 (17, 10.30), 3 (8, 4.85), 4 (2, 1.21), 5 (3, 1.82), 6 (1, 0.61), 7 (1, 0.61) | 5 |
| Indegree | 0~5 | 0.800 (0.564) | 0 (40, 24.24), 1 (121, 73.33), 2 (3, 1.82), 5 (1, 0.61) | 6 |
| Betweenness | 0~26 | 0.764 (3.096) | 0 (140, 84.85), 1 (8, 4.85), 2 (4, 2.42), 3 (5, 3.03), 4 (2, 1.21), 6 (2, 1.21), 12 (1, 0.61), 18 (1, 0.61), 19 (1, 0.61), 26 (1, 0.61) | 1 |
Mean outdegree and betweenness by sex and age group.
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0~10 | 0.143 | 0.375 | 0.267 | 0.857 | 0.750 | 0.80 |
| 11~20 | 0.667 | 0.000 | 0.333 | 0.667 | 0.000 | 0.333 |
| 21~30 | 0.857 | 0.600 | 0.706 | 1.714 | 0.100 | 0.765 |
| 31~40 | 1.571 | 1.000 | 1.381 | 1.786 | 0.571 | 1.381 |
| 41~50 | 1.481 | 1.091 | 1.368 | 0.222 | 0.000 | 0.158 |
| 51~60 | 0.947 | 0.615 | 0.813 | 1.684 | 0.538 | 1.219 |
| 61~70 | 0.500 | 0.000 | 0.278 | 2.300 | 0.000 | 1.278 |
| 71 or over | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Combined |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Major network components identified in the transmission network.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 24 (14.55) | 23 (17.42) | July 21 | P30 | P28, P30, P74, P83, P134, P145 |
| C2 | 10 (6.06) | 9 (6.82) | July 25 | P44 | – |
| C3 | 9 (5.45) | 8 (6.06) | July 25 | – | – |
| C4 | 7 (4.42) | 6 (4.55) | July 20 | P4 | – |
| C5 | 7 (4.42) | 6 (4.55) | July 23 | – | – |
| C6 | 6 (3.64) | 5 (3.79) | July 22 | – | – |
| C7 | 6 (3.64) | 7 (5.30) | July 22 | – | – |
| C8 | 6 (3.64) | 9 (6.82) | July 25 | P39 | – |
| C9 | 6 (3.64) | 5 (3.79) | August 4 | P225 | – |
| C1-C9 summary |
|
|
|
|
|
In the sketch of network components, darker nodes represent the first diagnosed source patient of a components, light nodes represent target patients. Node size is determined by outdegree. Edge thickness is determined by beteenness of parent node.
Component initiation date is the diagnosis date of the primary patient in that component.
Figure 3Dynamic contact network embedded social relations. Nodes represent patients, while edges represent transmission routes between patients. The color of edges represents the social relations between nodes connected by epidemiological contacts. The color of nodes represents the kind of social contacts by which they were infected. Node size is determined by outdegree. (A) Network on July 24. (B) Network on July 27. (C) Network on August 12.
Figure 4Statistics for social relations through which cases were infected.
Figure 5The transmission chain involving P30. The red node represents the primary patient in the transmission chain; the orange nodes represent bridging patients; the green nodes represent target patients. The larger the node size, the greater the betweenness centrality of the patient.