Development of information diffusion models based on mathematical models of disease diffusion

Authors

farzaneh fazli Dr, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Tehran, IranFollow
Seyyed Aliakbar Famil-Rohani Dr, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, IranFollow
Alireza Isfandyari-Mogaddam Dr, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, IranFollow
Manoochehr Karami Dr, Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, IranFollow

Date of this Version

2019

Document Type

Article

Citation

1. Pei S, Muchnik L, Tang S, Zheng Z, Makse HA. Exploring the complex pattern of information spreading in online blog communities. PloS one. 2015;10(5):e0126894.

2. Cliff A, Haggett P. Modeling diffusion processes. Encyclopedia of social measurement Academic, London. 2005:709-24.

3. Kermack WO, McKendrick AG, editors. A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: mathematical, physical and engineering sciences; 1927: The Royal Society.

4. Goffman W, Newill VA. Generalization of epidemic theory: An application to the transmission of ideas. Nature. 1964;204(4955):225-8.

5. Hethcote HW. The mathematics of infectious diseases. SIAM review. 2000;42(4):599-653.

6. Barrat A, Barthelemy M, Vespignani A. Dynamical processes on complex networks: Cambridge university press; 2008.

7. Pei S, Makse HA. Spreading dynamics in complex networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment. 2013;2013(12):P12002.

8. Yan S, Tang S, Pei S, Jiang S, Zhang X, Ding W, et al. The spreading of opposite opinions on online social networks with authoritative nodes. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2013;392(17):3846-55.

9. Kitsak M, Gallos LK, Havlin S, Liljeros F, Muchnik L, Stanley HE, et al. Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:10015285. 2010.

10. Chen Y-Y, Chen F, Gunnell D, Yip PS. The impact of media reporting on the emergence of charcoal burning suicide in Taiwan. PloS one. 2013;8(1):e55000.

11. Doerr B, Fouz M, Friedrich T. Why rumors spread so quickly in social networks. Communications of the ACM. 2012;55(6):70-5.

12. Moreno Y, Nekovee M, Pacheco AF. Dynamics of rumor spreading in complex networks. Physical Review E. 2004;69(6):066130.

13. Montanari A, Saberi A. The spread of innovations in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010;107(47):20196-201.

14. Centola D. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. science. 2010;329(5996):1194-7.

15. Centola D. An experimental study of homophily in the adoption of health behavior. Science. 2011;334(6060):1269-72.

16. Dybiec B, Mitarai N, Sneppen K. Information spreading and development of cultural centers. Physical Review E. 2012;85(5):056116.

17. Aral S. Commentary—identifying social influence: A comment on opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Science. 2011;30(2):217-23.

18. Christakis NA, Fowler JH. Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives: Little, Brown; 2009.

19. Kleinberg J. Cascading behavior in networks: Algorithmic and economic issues. Algorithmic game theory. 2007;24:613-32.

20. Funk S, Salathé M, Jansen VA. Modelling the influence of human behaviour on the spread of infectious diseases: a review. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 2010:rsif20100142.

21. Liben-Nowell D, Kleinberg J. Tracing information flow on a global scale using Internet chain-letter data. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences. 2008;105(12):4633-8.

22. Muchnik L, Pei S, Parra LC, Reis SD, Andrade Jr JS, Havlin S, et al. Origins of power-law degree distribution in the heterogeneity of human activity in social networks. Scientific reports. 2013;3:1783.

23. Castellano C, Fortunato S, Loreto V. Statistical physics of social dynamics. Reviews of modern physics. 2009;81(2):591.

24. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern epidemiology: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.

25. Iribarren JL, Moro E. Information diffusion epidemics in social networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:07060641. 2007.

26. Leskovec J, Adamic LA, Huberman BA. The dynamics of viral marketing. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB). 2007;1(1):5.

27. Wu F, Huberman BA, Adamic LA, Tyler JR. Information flow in social groups. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2004;337(1):327-35.

28. Tang M, Mao X, Yang S, Zhou H. A dynamic microblog network and information dissemination in “@” mode. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. 2014;2014.

29. Wang Q, Lin Z, Jin Y, Cheng S, Yang T. ESIS: emotion-based spreader–ignorant–stifler model for information diffusion. Knowledge-Based Systems. 2015;81:46-55.

30. Zhang Z-K, Zhang C-X, Han X-P, Liu C. Emergence of blind areas in information spreading. PloS one. 2014;9(4):e95785.

31. Khalili D, Sheikholeslami FH, Bakhtiyari M, Azizi F, Momenan AA, Hadaegh F. The incidence of coronary heart disease and the population attributable fraction of its risk factors in Tehran: a 10-year population-based cohort study. PloS one. 2014;9(8):e105804.

32. Woo J, Chen H. Epidemic model for information diffusion in web forums: experiments in marketing exchange and political dialog. SpringerPlus. 2016;5(1):66.

Abstract

Abstract

Purpose: Analysis of information diffusion process based on models of spread of epidemics is one of the issues considered by the researchers. Limited studies have addressed investigation and analysis of scientific information diffusion. Current study was conducted aiming at identifying scientific information diffusion process among academic faculty members using mathematical models of spread of diseases during 2016.

Methodology: Mathematical models of spread of epidemics including SIS, SI, and SIR models were used for analysis of scientific information diffusion. The study was conducted using semi-experimental method on 147 faculty members in three stages including evaluation of current status at time t0, after implementation of intervention of models including susceptible, infected (informed) and recovered (information saturation). Using statistical methods, chance of disease transmission from each compartment to the next one was measured.

Findings: Research findings suggested feasibility of SIS, SI, and SIR models in describing information diffusion process. People who are susceptible to scientific information will not remain in a constant state after receiving information. So that 51.6% of the people remain in a state of informed and 39.1% return to susceptible conditions. Also, only 9.3% of people will switch to saturated and unnecessary conditions.

Conclusion: Application of models of epidemics spread and its extension to scientific information diffusion is accurate. In addition, mostly individuals will remain at constant state after receiving scientific information.