ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
A comparison of contact patterns derived from the population structure in agent-based models and empirical contact survey data.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Agent-based models (ABMs) are powerful tools for simulating disease spread, relying on individual-level interaction rules from which emergent dynamics arise. An important component in ABMs is contact behaviour. To reduce computational complexity, contact behaviour in ABMs is often assumed as random mixing within structurally defined settings (as, e.g., workplaces). with setting composition typically based on empirical data such as census information. However, the validity of this approach to represent contacts remains unclear. To address this gap, we compare the contact structure derived through this approach in a large-scale ABM with empirical contact survey data with respect to age contact matrices for households, schools, workplaces, all remaining contact settings, and all contacts combined (based on difference matrices and sum of squared errors (SSE)). Our results demonstrate that random mixing in settings with known age compositions like households (SSE:0.7(95%CI0.4-0.9)), schools (SSE:0.7(95%CI:0.3-1.1)) and workplaces (SSE:0.5(95%CI:0.2-0.7)), captures basic interaction patterns but fails to account for age-related variation in contact numbers. The largest differences arise for contacts outside these settings (SSE:3.8(95%CI:1.2-6.5)), as ABMs typically use random regional contacts that do not capture age-structured behaviour observed in contact surveys. Applying contact matrices from both approaches to an age-structured compartmental model, leads to noticeable differences in simulated epidemic outcomes regarding reproduction numbers and spreading dynamics between age groups. Our results suggest that naïve approaches to represent contact behaviour in ABMs based on population structure can be valid in settings with defined age-structures while settings with low a priori structure require more advanced methods to represent contact behaviour observed in contact surveys.
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.