| Id |
Subject |
Object |
Predicate |
Lexical cue |
| T254 |
0-53 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Core-periphery structure of hospital contact patterns |
| T255 |
54-164 |
Sentence |
denotes |
A core-periphery analysis was conducted to further explore the network structure of hospital contact patterns. |
| T256 |
165-431 |
Sentence |
denotes |
The result shows a core composed of 96 individual hosts including high out-degree hosts #1, #16 and #76 with high in-degree hosts #10, #39, #46, #74, and #107, who were all very likely to come in contact with three healthcare facilities (SSC, PMH, and DKH; Table 6). |
| T257 |
432-615 |
Sentence |
denotes |
In other words, the core healthcare facilities were more likely to increase the contact event among individual hosts with MERS risk, because they were all visited by 96 or more hosts. |
| T258 |
616-685 |
Sentence |
denotes |
The peripheral hospitals had 37 or fewer (partition not shown) hosts. |
| T259 |
686-814 |
Sentence |
denotes |
The remainder of the hosts was grouped into the periphery as both presenting less frequently and having few hospitals in common. |
| T260 |
815-993 |
Sentence |
denotes |
A considerable number of healthcare facilities were also grouped as peripheral in the sense that they were less visited by infectious hosts, and these hosts had little in common. |
| T261 |
994-1065 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Table 6 Density matrix for the 2-mode categorical core-periphery model. |
| T262 |
1066-1114 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Core(Ncs = 3: SSC, PMH, DKH) Periphery(Nps = 40) |
| T263 |
1115-1142 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Core (Nca = 96) 0.285 0.016 |
| T264 |
1143-1176 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Periphery (Npa = 87)* 0.240 0.010 |
| T265 |
1177-1251 |
Sentence |
denotes |
*Hosts #2, #133, and #145 were exempted from hospital-acquired infections. |
| T266 |
1252-1393 |
Sentence |
denotes |
On the other hand, a host in the core visited either one or more core hospitals or one core hospital and at least three peripheral hospitals. |
| T267 |
1394-1595 |
Sentence |
denotes |
For instance, nodes that interacted with host #1 were on the core side, whereas nodes that were likely to interact with host #14 were unexpectedly located in the same topological area of the periphery. |
| T268 |
1596-1803 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Host #1 localised in a cluster containing another three healthcare facilities (SSC, PMH, and DKH), which were observed to associate with major nosocomial infections (see red, green, and blue dots in Fig. 3). |
| T269 |
1804-1907 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Interestingly, the SSC cluster was connected via the shared hub host #1 to a cluster consisting of PMH. |
| T270 |
1908-2041 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Additionally, PGH and HHC were present in the periphery and localised to a host #14 partition of the network (yellow dots in Fig. 3). |
| T271 |
2042-2338 |
Sentence |
denotes |
This implies that, based on the idea of the structural equivalence32,40, hosts #1 (at the core of the network) and #14 (at the periphery) were not structurally equivalent, although they were highly connected, because they occupied unequal positions or had non-identical relationships with alters. |
| T272 |
2339-2562 |
Sentence |
denotes |
The result also shows that core hosts presented themselves less frequently (0.016) at peripheral healthcare facilities, whereas peripheral hosts presented themselves somewhat more heavily (0.24) at core hospitals (Table 6). |