PLoS Comput Biol. 2016 Jul 14;12(7):e1004928. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004928. eCollection 2016 Jul.
Disease Surveillance on Complex Social Networks.
PLoS computational biology
Jose L Herrera, Ravi Srinivasan, John S Brownstein, Alison P Galvani, Lauren Ancel Meyers
Affiliations
Affiliations
- Department of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
- Departamento de Cálculo, Escuela Básica de Ingeniería, Facultad de Ingeneiría, Universidad de Los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela.
- Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
- Department of Statistics and Data Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
- Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School and Children's Hospital Informatics Program, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
- Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.
PMID: 27415615
PMCID: PMC4944951 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004928
Abstract
As infectious disease surveillance systems expand to include digital, crowd-sourced, and social network data, public health agencies are gaining unprecedented access to high-resolution data and have an opportunity to selectively monitor informative individuals. Contact networks, which are the webs of interaction through which diseases spread, determine whether and when individuals become infected, and thus who might serve as early and accurate surveillance sensors. Here, we evaluate three strategies for selecting sensors-sampling the most connected, random, and friends of random individuals-in three complex social networks-a simple scale-free network, an empirical Venezuelan college student network, and an empirical Montreal wireless hotspot usage network. Across five different surveillance goals-early and accurate detection of epidemic emergence and peak, and general situational awareness-we find that the optimal choice of sensors depends on the public health goal, the underlying network and the reproduction number of the disease (R0). For diseases with a low R0, the most connected individuals provide the earliest and most accurate information about both the onset and peak of an outbreak. However, identifying network hubs is often impractical, and they can be misleading if monitored for general situational awareness, if the underlying network has significant community structure, or if R0 is high or unknown. Taking a theoretical approach, we also derive the optimal surveillance system for early outbreak detection but find that real-world identification of such sensors would be nearly impossible. By contrast, the friends-of-random strategy offers a more practical and robust alternative. It can be readily implemented without prior knowledge of the network, and by identifying sensors with higher than average, but not the highest, epidemiological risk, it provides reasonably early and accurate information.
References
- Science. 2013 Jun 14;340(6138):1272 - PubMed
- PLoS One. 2010 Sep 15;5(9):e12948 - PubMed
- Science. 1999 Oct 15;286(5439):509-12 - PubMed
- BMC Med. 2013 Feb 12;11:35 - PubMed
- Emerg Infect Dis. 2003 Feb;9(2):204-10 - PubMed
- PLoS One. 2013 May 30;8(5):e64323 - PubMed
- PLoS One. 2011 Apr 27;6(4):e18687 - PubMed
- Euro Surveill. 2009 Nov 05;14(44):null - PubMed
- Phys Rev Lett. 2009 Apr 24;102(16):160602 - PubMed
- PLoS Comput Biol. 2010 Apr 08;6(4):e1000736 - PubMed
- Nature. 2009 Feb 19;457(7232):1012-4 - PubMed
- Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2001 Dec;64(6 Pt 2):066112 - PubMed
- J Med Internet Res. 2015 Jul 08;17(7):e169 - PubMed
- J Med Internet Res. 2012 Oct 04;14(5):e125 - PubMed
- PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56176 - PubMed
- J Math Biol. 2008 Mar;56(3):293-310 - PubMed
- PLoS One. 2015 Sep 01;10(9):e0136497 - PubMed
- PLoS Med. 2008 Jul 8;5(7):e151 - PubMed
- Am J Epidemiol. 2005 Nov 15;162(10):1024-31 - PubMed
- Emerg Infect Dis. 2008 Nov;14(11):1819-21 - PubMed
- PLoS One. 2010 Nov 29;5(11):e14118 - PubMed
- BMC Med. 2013 Feb 12;11:36 - PubMed
- Netw Sci (Camb Univ Press). 2015 Sep 1;3(3):298-325 - PubMed
- Science. 2001 May 18;292(5520):1316-7 - PubMed
- Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Nov 7;273(1602):2743-8 - PubMed
- Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2010 Oct;100(1):16-23 - PubMed
- N Engl J Med. 2009 May 21;360(21):2153-5, 2157 - PubMed
- Emerg Infect Dis. 2010 May;16(5):783-8 - PubMed
- Epidemiology. 2010 Nov;21(6):760-3 - PubMed
- Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Nov 15;49(10):1557-64 - PubMed
- J Infect Dis. 2006 Nov 1;194 Suppl 2:S82-91 - PubMed
- Phys Rev Lett. 2001 Apr 16;86(16):3682-5 - PubMed
- J R Soc Interface. 2012 Nov 7;9(76):2814-25 - PubMed
- PLoS One. 2013 Dec 09;8(12):e83672 - PubMed
- J Theor Biol. 2006 Jun 7;240(3):400-18 - PubMed
- Phys Rev Lett. 2001 Apr 2;86(14):3200-3 - PubMed
- J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 Mar-Apr;15(2):150-7 - PubMed
- Nature. 2000 Jul 27;406(6794):378-82 - PubMed
- J Theor Biol. 2012 Sep 21;309:176-84 - PubMed
- J Theor Biol. 2005 Jan 7;232(1):71-81 - PubMed
- Geospat Health. 2010 May;4(2):135-7 - PubMed
- PLoS Comput Biol. 2011 Jun;7(6):e1002042 - PubMed
- Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2002 Jul;66(1 Pt 2):016128 - PubMed
- Nature. 1998 Jun 4;393(6684):440-2 - PubMed
- PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(4):e1002472 - PubMed
- Euro Surveill. 2010 Jul 22;15(29):null - PubMed
- Hum Biol. 1952 Sep;24(3):201-33 - PubMed
- Phys Rev Lett. 2003 Dec 12;91(24):247901 - PubMed
MeSH terms
Publication Types
Grant support