| Id |
Subject |
Object |
Predicate |
Lexical cue |
| T145 |
0-18 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Network centrality |
| T146 |
19-204 |
Sentence |
denotes |
We sought to investigate the degree centrality of MERS contact relations, because super-spreaders involved in disease transmission pathways are known for their role in disease dynamics. |
| T147 |
205-335 |
Sentence |
denotes |
The degree centrality describes the extent to which an individual host may be cohesive to a network of personal contact relations. |
| T148 |
336-633 |
Sentence |
denotes |
In the degree centrality results (Table 2), hosts #14 (M14) and #1 (M1) had higher percentages of out-degree links, indicating that they were in direct infectious contact with many other target hosts in the network, because each had more than 19% network centrality (46% for #14 and 19.3% for #1). |
| T149 |
634-699 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Most other hosts in the network had relatively fewer connections. |
| T150 |
700-893 |
Sentence |
denotes |
These direct contacts made hosts #1 and #14 more accessible to other hosts, generating several transmission chains that led to the infection of the susceptible target population in the network. |
| T151 |
894-1093 |
Sentence |
denotes |
This means that small fractions of highly connected ‘hub’ hosts acting as potential super-spreaders played a pertinent role in fueling and driving epidemics of infectious diseases (infectivity)36–39. |
| T152 |
1094-1428 |
Sentence |
denotes |
In other words, both host #1 (the index case: the first host infected in a chain of transmission) and host #14 (secondary case: typical infectious host) were well-characterised super-spreaders who held prominent structural advantage in facilitating continued transmission of the infection to susceptible hosts in their neighbourhoods. |
| T153 |
1429-1603 |
Sentence |
denotes |
By contrast, host #37 had a high in-degree and was more at risk of becoming infected through contact with other infectious individuals, followed by hosts #39, #162, and #179. |
| T154 |
1604-1798 |
Sentence |
denotes |
In other words, the more often a host was exposed to a potential threat by way of coming in contact, the more vulnerable he or she was to the risks leading to the MERS infection (vulnerability). |
| T155 |
1799-2039 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Regarding betweenness centrality, which measures the extent to which a particular individual host lies between other hosts in the network, the overall network centralization was very low at 0.35% of the purely centralized network (Table 2). |
| T156 |
2040-2126 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Thus, most contacts could be made in this network without the aid of any intermediary. |
| T157 |
2127-2343 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Despite this structural constraint, hosts #16 and #76, along with the typical infectious host #14, provided a spatial link or pathway through which MERS was transmitted from the source to the target host populations. |
| T158 |
2344-2573 |
Sentence |
denotes |
For instance, host #14, who acquired the infection through contact with infectious host #1, infected host #76, and the infection transmission continued to emerge through personal contacts within a population of susceptible hosts. |
| T159 |
2574-2702 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Without the tie to bridge hosts, therefore, other susceptible individuals might have been largely isolated from MERS infections. |
| T160 |
2703-2812 |
Sentence |
denotes |
The closeness centrality indicates the potential independence of a host from the relation of disease contact. |
| T161 |
2813-3108 |
Sentence |
denotes |
With closeness, hosts #1 and #14 had significant potential to make infectious contacts with the target host because of the shorter paths to transmission possibilities, thereby enabling the initial introduction and subsequent spread of MERS towards its target population with transitory contacts. |
| T162 |
3109-3198 |
Sentence |
denotes |
As a result, overall closeness centralization was higher than betweenness centralization. |
| T163 |
3199-3308 |
Sentence |
denotes |
This suggests that there were decentralized short-distance disease contact routes with centralised hub hosts. |
| T164 |
3309-3472 |
Sentence |
denotes |
However, no significant mediation was observed (47.2%: the distributions of in-and out-closenesses could not be computed because the network was weakly connected). |
| T165 |
3473-3586 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Finally, the eigenvector of geodesic distances offers a measure of the diversity of a personal contact’s network. |
| T166 |
3587-3916 |
Sentence |
denotes |
The results show that host #14 had the highest eigenvector centrality, indicating the consistent hub host of infection transmission in the personal contact network, which is more central to the main pattern of contact distances among all of the individual hosts (degree of inequality was 99.18% of the maximum possible; Table 2). |
