Examining the Influence of Imbalanced Social Contact Matrices in Epidemic Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transmissible infections such as those caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread according to who contacts whom. Therefore, many epidemic models incorporate contact patterns through contact matrices. Contact matrices can be generated from social contact survey data. However, the resulting matrices are often imbalanced, such that the total number of contacts reported by group A with group B do not match those reported by group B with group A. We examined the theoretical influence of imbalanced contact matrices on the estimated basic reproduction number (R0). We then explored how imbalanced matrices may bias model-based epidemic projections using an illustrative simulation model of SARS-CoV-2 with 2 age groups (<15 and ≥15 years). Models with imbalanced matrices underestimated the initial spread of SARS-CoV-2, had later time to peak incidence, and had smaller peak incidence. Imbalanced matrices also influenced cumulative infections observed per age group, as well as the estimated impact of an age-specific vaccination strategy. Stratified transmission models that do not consider contact balancing may generate biased projections of epidemic trajectory and the impact of targeted public health interventions. Therefore, modeling studies should implement and report methods used to balance contact matrices for stratified transmission models.
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 | 0.013 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".