Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36050348›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Modelling the dynamic relationship between spread of infection and observed crowd movement patterns at large scale events.

Philip Rutten, Michael H Lees, Sander Klous, Hans Heesterbeek, Peter M A Sloot

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Philip RuttenInformatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. p.rutten@uva.nl.
Michael H LeesInformatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sander KlousInformatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hans HeesterbeekDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Peter M A SlootInformatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
University of Amsterdam · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding how contact patterns arise from crowd movement is crucial for assessing the spread of infection at mass gathering events. Here we study contact patterns from Wi-Fi mobility data of large sports and entertainment events in the Johan Cruijff ArenA stadium in Amsterdam. We show that crowd movement behaviour at mass gathering events is not homogeneous in time, but naturally consists of alternating periods of movement and rest. As a result, contact duration distributions are heavy-tailed, an observation which is not explained by models assuming that pedestrian contacts are analogous to collisions in the kinetic gas model. We investigate the effect of heavy-tailed contact duration patterns on the spread of infection using various random walk models. We show how different types of intermittent movement behaviour interact with a time-dependent infection probability. Our results point to the existence of a crossover point where increased contact duration presents a higher level of transmission risk than increasing the number of contacts. In addition, we show that different types of intermittent movement behaviour give rise to different mass-action kinetics, but also show that neither one of two mass-action mechanisms uniquely describes events.

Indexed as

CrowdingPedestriansHumansKineticsMovement

Identifiers

PMID36050348
PMCPMC9434081
OpenAlexW4294084989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.