↓ Skip to main content

Epidemiologically Optimal Static Networks from Temporal Network Data

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Epidemiologically Optimal Static Networks from Temporal Network Data
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, July 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003142
Pubmed ID
Authors

Petter Holme

Abstract

One of network epidemiology's central assumptions is that the contact structure over which infectious diseases propagate can be represented as a static network. However, contacts are highly dynamic, changing at many time scales. In this paper, we investigate conceptually simple methods to construct static graphs for network epidemiology from temporal contact data. We evaluate these methods on empirical and synthetic model data. For almost all our cases, the network representation that captures most relevant information is a so-called exponential-threshold network. In these, each contact contributes with a weight decreasing exponentially with time, and there is an edge between a pair of vertices if the weight between them exceeds a threshold. Networks of aggregated contacts over an optimally chosen time window perform almost as good as the exponential-threshold networks. On the other hand, networks of accumulated contacts over the entire sampling time, and networks of concurrent partnerships, perform worse. We discuss these observations in the context of the temporal and topological structure of the data sets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Italy 2 2%
China 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 96 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 25%
Student > Master 13 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 5 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 19 18%
Physics and Astronomy 19 18%
Mathematics 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 9%
Engineering 8 7%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 22 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 August 2013.
All research outputs
#3,772,671
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#3,262
of 8,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,237
of 208,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#31
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,961 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 208,029 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.