Individual movements and contact patterns in a Canadian long-term care facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contact networks of individuals in healthcare facilities are poorly understood, largely due to the lack of spatio-temporal movement data. A better understanding of such networks of interactions can help improve disease control strategies for nosocomial outbreaks. We sought to determine the spatio-temporal patterns of interactions between individuals using movement data collected in the largest veterans long-term care facility in Canada. We processed close-range contact data generated by the exchange of ultra-low-power radio signals, in a prescribed proximity, between wireless sensors worn by the participants over a two-week period. Statistical analyses of contact and movement data were conducted. We found a clear dichotomy in the contact network and movement patterns between residents and healthcare workers (HCWs) in this facility. Overall, residents tend to have significantly more distinct contacts with the mean of 17.3 (s.d. 3.6) contacts, versus 3.5 (s.d. 2.3) for HCWs (p-value < 10–12), for a longer duration of time (with mean contact duration of 8 minutes for resident-resident pair versus 4.6 minutes for HCW-resident pair) while being less mobile than HCWs. Analysis of movement data and clustering coefficient of the hourly aggregated network indicates that the contact network is loosely connected (mean clustering coefficient: 0.25, interquartile range 0–0.40), while being highly structured. Our findings bring quantitative insights regarding the contact network and movements in a long-term care facility, which are highly relevant to infer direct human-to-human and indirect (i.e., via the environment) disease transmission processes. This data-driven quantification is essential for validating disease dynamic models, as well as decision analytic methods to inform control strategies for nosocomial infections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".