TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of contact patterns derived from the population structure in agent-based models and empirical contact survey data
AU - Suer, Janik
AU - Ponge, Johannes
AU - Brüggemann, Michael
AU - Burgard, Jan Pablo
AU - Belik, Vitaly
AU - Hellingrath, Bernd
AU - Hidalgo, Alejandra Rincón
AU - Jarynowski, Andrzej K.
AU - Pastor, Richard
AU - Phuong, Huynh Thi
AU - Schulz, Steven
AU - Thampi, Ashish
AU - Xu, Chao
AU - Zambrano, Marlli
AU - Mikolajczyk, Rafael
AU - Karch, André
AU - Jaeger, Veronika K.
AU - Pamplona, João Vitor
AU - Münnich, Ralf
AU - Shams, Soheil
AU - Lange, Berit
AU - Rodiah, Isti
AU - Steinmann, Maren
AU - Gruhn, Sebastian
AU - Greiner, Wolfgang
AU - Bock, Wolfgang
AU - Bayer, Lukas
AU - Tiwari, Sudarshan
AU - Derwanz, Hannah
AU - Bryzgalov, Aleksandr
AU - Musundi, Beryl
AU - Horn, Johannes
AU - Patzner, Julian
AU - Mahreen, Kahkashan
AU - Sarajan, Myka
AU - Kersting, Moritz
AU - Scholz, Markus
AU - Kuhlmann, Alexander
AU - Valdez, André Calero
AU - Kojan, Lilian
AU - Jahn, Beate
AU - Siebert, Uwe
AU - Kretzschmar, Mirjam E.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2026 Suer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
PY - 2026/6/18
Y1 - 2026/6/18
N2 - Agent-based models (ABMs) are powerful tools for simulating disease spread, relying on individual-level interaction rules from which emergent dynamics arise. An important component in ABMs is contact behaviour. To reduce computational complexity, contact behaviour in ABMs is often assumed as random mixing within structurally defined settings (as, e.g., workplaces), with setting composition typically based on empirical data such as census information. However, the validity of this approach to represent contacts remains unclear. To address this gap, we compare the contact structure derived through this approach in a large-scale ABM with empirical contact survey data with respect to age contact matrices for households, schools, workplaces, all remaining contact settings, and all contacts combined (based on difference matrices and sum of squared errors (SSE)). Our results demonstrate that random mixing in settings with known age compositions like households (SSE:0.7(95%CI0.4–0.9)), schools (SSE:0.7(95%CI:0.3–1.1)) and workplaces (SSE:0.5(95%CI:0.2–0.7)), captures basic interaction patterns but fails to account for age-related variation in contact numbers. The largest differences arise for contacts outside these settings (SSE:3.8(95%CI:1.2–6.5)), as ABMs typically use random regional contacts that do not capture age-structured behaviour observed in contact surveys.
AB - Agent-based models (ABMs) are powerful tools for simulating disease spread, relying on individual-level interaction rules from which emergent dynamics arise. An important component in ABMs is contact behaviour. To reduce computational complexity, contact behaviour in ABMs is often assumed as random mixing within structurally defined settings (as, e.g., workplaces), with setting composition typically based on empirical data such as census information. However, the validity of this approach to represent contacts remains unclear. To address this gap, we compare the contact structure derived through this approach in a large-scale ABM with empirical contact survey data with respect to age contact matrices for households, schools, workplaces, all remaining contact settings, and all contacts combined (based on difference matrices and sum of squared errors (SSE)). Our results demonstrate that random mixing in settings with known age compositions like households (SSE:0.7(95%CI0.4–0.9)), schools (SSE:0.7(95%CI:0.3–1.1)) and workplaces (SSE:0.5(95%CI:0.2–0.7)), captures basic interaction patterns but fails to account for age-related variation in contact numbers. The largest differences arise for contacts outside these settings (SSE:3.8(95%CI:1.2–6.5)), as ABMs typically use random regional contacts that do not capture age-structured behaviour observed in contact surveys.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105044053931
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013533
DO - 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013533
M3 - Article
C2 - 42313877
AN - SCOPUS:105044053931
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 22
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
IS - 6
M1 - e1013533
ER -