| Id |
Subject |
Object |
Predicate |
Lexical cue |
| T266 |
0-141 |
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 |
142-343 |
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 |
344-551 |
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 |
552-655 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Interestingly, the SSC cluster was connected via the shared hub host #1 to a cluster consisting of PMH. |
| T270 |
656-789 |
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 |
790-1086 |
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 |
1087-1310 |
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). |
