From Markovian to pairwise epidemic models and the performance of moment closure approximations

Many if not all models of disease transmission on networks can be linked to the exact state-based Markovian formulation. However the large number of equations for any system of realistic size limits their applicability to small populations. As a result, most modelling work relies on simulation and pairwise models. In this paper, for a simple SIS dynamics on an arbitrary network, we formalise the link between a well known pairwise model and the exact Markovian formulation. This involves the rigorous derivation of the exact ODE model at the level of pairs in terms of the expected number of pairs and triples. The exact system is then closed using two different closures, one well established and one that has been recently proposed. A new interpretation of both closures is presented, which explains several of their previously observed properties. The closed dynamical systems are solved numerically and the results are compared to output from individual-based stochastic simulations. This is done for a range of networks with the same average degree and clustering coefficient but generated using different algorithms. It is shown that the ability of the pairwise system to accurately model an epidemic is fundamentally dependent on the underlying large-scale network structure. We show that the existing pairwise models are a good fit for certain types of network but have to be used with caution as higher-order network structures may compromise their effectiveness.

[1]  Leif Gustafsson,et al.  Consistent micro, macro and state-based population modelling. , 2010, Mathematical biosciences.

[2]  M. Keeling,et al.  On methods for studying stochastic disease dynamics , 2008, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[3]  E. Volz SIR dynamics in random networks with heterogeneous connectivity , 2007, Journal of mathematical biology.

[4]  M. Keeling,et al.  The effects of local spatial structure on epidemiological invasions , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[5]  Minus van Baalen,et al.  The Geometry of Ecological Interactions: Pair Approximations for Different Spatial Geometries , 2000 .

[6]  M. Keeling,et al.  Integrating stochasticity and network structure into an epidemic model , 2008, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[7]  Matt J Keeling,et al.  Contact tracing and disease control , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[8]  Istvan Z Kiss,et al.  Large-scale properties of clustered networks: implications for disease dynamics , 2010, Journal of biological dynamics.

[9]  J. Klotz Statistical Inference in Bernoulli Trials with Dependence , 1973 .

[10]  K. Sharkey Deterministic epidemiological models at the individual level , 2008, Journal of mathematical biology.

[11]  Jacqueline McGlade,et al.  Advanced Ecological Theory , 1999 .

[12]  K. Eames,et al.  Contact tracing strategies in heterogeneous populations , 2006, Epidemiology and Infection.

[13]  Akira Sasaki,et al.  Pathogen invasion and host extinction in lattice structured populations , 1994, Journal of mathematical biology.

[14]  J. O. Irwin,et al.  MATHEMATICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY , 1958 .

[15]  Rowland R Kao,et al.  The effect of contact heterogeneity and multiple routes of transmission on final epidemic size. , 2006, Mathematical biosciences.

[16]  Matt J Keeling,et al.  Modeling dynamic and network heterogeneities in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  David A. Rand,et al.  Correlation Equations and Pair Approximations for Spatial Ecologies , 1999 .

[18]  I. Kiss,et al.  Exact epidemic models on graphs using graph-automorphism driven lumping , 2010, Journal of mathematical biology.

[19]  F. Ball,et al.  Analysis of a stochastic SIR epidemic on a random network incorporating household structure. , 2010, Mathematical biosciences.

[20]  K. Eames,et al.  Modelling disease spread through random and regular contacts in clustered populations. , 2008, Theoretical population biology.

[21]  M. Keeling,et al.  Disease evolution on networks: the role of contact structure , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[22]  I. Kiss,et al.  Infectious disease control using contact tracing in random and scale-free networks , 2006, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[23]  Darren M Green,et al.  Comment on "properties of highly clustered networks". , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[24]  M. Keeling,et al.  Networks and epidemic models , 2005, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[25]  Erik M Volz Dynamics of infectious disease in clustered networks with arbitrary degree distributions , 2010 .

[26]  Joel C. Miller A note on a paper by Erik Volz: SIR dynamics in random networks , 2009, Journal of mathematical biology.

[27]  Rowland R Kao,et al.  A Contact-Network-Based Formulation of a Preferential Mixing Model , 2009, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[28]  Matt J. Keeling,et al.  Insights from unifying modern approximations to infections on networks , 2010, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[29]  M. Newman Properties of highly clustered networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[30]  Matt J. Keeling,et al.  The Impact of Contact Tracing in Clustered Populations , 2010, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[31]  Matt J. Keeling,et al.  A Motif-Based Approach to Network Epidemics , 2009, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[32]  R. Durrett Random Graph Dynamics: References , 2006 .