Modeling the interplay between disease spread, behaviors, and disease perception with a data-driven approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Individuals’ perceptions of disease influence their adherence to preventive measures, shaping the dynamics of disease spread. Despite extensive research on the interaction between disease spread, human behaviors, and interventions, few models have incorporated real-world behavioral data on disease perception, limiting their applicability. This study novelly integrates disease perception, represented by perceived severity, as a critical determinant of behavioral change into a data-driven compartmental model to assess its impact on disease spread. Using survey data, we explore scenarios involving a competition between a COVID-19 wave and a vaccination campaign, where individuals’ behaviors vary based on their perceived severity of the disease. Results demonstrate that behavioral heterogeneities influenced by perceived severity affect epidemic dynamics, with high heterogeneity yielding contrasting effects. Longer adherence to protective measures by groups with high perceived severity provides greater protection to vulnerable individuals, while premature relaxation of behaviors by low perceived severity groups facilitates virus spread. Epidemiological curves reveal that differences in behavior among groups can eliminate a second infection peak, resulting in a higher first peak and overall more severe outcomes. The specific modeling approach for how perceived severity modulates behavior parameters does not strongly impact the model’s outcomes. Sensitivity analyses confirm the robustness of our findings, emphasizing the consistent impact of behavioral heterogeneities across various scenarios. Our study underscores the importance of integrating risk perception into infectious disease transmission models and highlights the necessity of extensive data collection to enhance model accuracy and relevance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".