Comparing Contact Tracing Through Bluetooth and GPS Surveillance Data: Simulation-Driven Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate and responsive epidemiological simulations of epidemic outbreaks inform decision-making to mitigate the impact of pandemics. These simulations must be grounded in quantities derived from measurements, among which the parameters associated with contacts between individuals are notoriously difficult to estimate. Digital contact tracing data, such as those provided by Bluetooth beaconing or GPS colocating, can provide more precise measures of contact than traditional methods based on direct observation or self-reporting. Both measurement modalities have shortcomings and are prone to false positives or negatives, as unmeasured environmental influences bias the data. OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare GPS colocated versus Bluetooth beacon-derived proximity contact data for their impacts on transmission models' results under community and types of diseases. METHODS: We examined the contact patterns derived from 3 data sets collected in 2016, with participants comprising students and staff from the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. Each of these 3 data sets used both Bluetooth beaconing and GPS localization on smartphones running the Ethica Data (Avicenna Research) app to collect sensor data about every 5 minutes over a month. We compared the structure of contact networks inferred from proximity contact data collected with the modalities of GPS colocating and Bluetooth beaconing. We assessed the impact of sensing modalities on the simulation results of transmission models informed by proximate contacts derived from sensing data. Specifically, we compared the incidence number, attack rate, and individual infection risks across simulation results of agent-based susceptible-exposed-infectious-removed transmission models of 4 different contagious diseases. We have demonstrated their differences with violin plots, 2-tailed t tests, and Kullback-Leibler divergence. RESULTS: Both network structure analyses show visually salient differences in proximity contact data collected between GPS colocating and Bluetooth beaconing, regardless of the underlying population. Significant differences were found for the estimated attack rate based on distance threshold, measurement modality, and simulated disease. This finding demonstrates that the sensor modality used to trace contact can have a significant impact on the expected propagation of a disease through a population. The violin plots of attack rate and Kullback-Leibler divergence of individual infection risks demonstrated discernible differences for different sensing modalities, regardless of the underlying population and diseases. The results of the t tests on attack rate between different sensing modalities were mostly significant (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: We show that the contact networks generated from these 2 measurement modalities are different and generate significantly different attack rates across multiple data sets and pathogens. While both modalities offer higher-resolution portraits of contact behavior than is possible with most traditional contact measures, the differential impact of measurement modality on the simulation outcome cannot be ignored and must be addressed in studies only using a single measure of contact in the future.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".