ArticleJournal of theoretical biology2018
Determining whether a class of random graphs is consistent with an observed contact network.
Article in Journal of theoretical biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We demonstrate a general method to analyze the sensitivity of attack rate in a network model of infectious disease epidemiology to the structure of the network. We use Moore and Shannon's "network reliability" statistic to measure the epidemic potential of a network. A number of networks are generated using exponential random graph models based on the properties of the contact network structure of one of the Add Health surveys. The expected number of infections on the original Add Health network is significantly different from that on any of the models derived from it. Because individual-level transmissibility and network structure are not separately identifiable parameters given population-level attack rate data it is possible to re-calibrate the transmissibility to fix this difference. However, the temporal behavior of the outbreak remains significantly different. Hence any estimates of the effectiveness of time dependent interventions on one network are unlikely to generalize to the other. Moreover, we show that in one case even a small perturbation to the network spoils the re-calibration. Unfortunately, the set of sufficient statistics for specifying a contact network model is not yet known. Until it is, estimates of the outcome of a dynamical process on a particular network obtained from simulations on a different network are not reliable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.