Quantifying agent impacts on contact sequences in social interactions

Human social behavior plays a crucial role in how pathogens like SARS-CoV-2 or fake news spread in a population. Social interactions determine the contact network among individuals, while spreading, requiring individual-to-individual transmission, takes place on top of the network. Studying the topological aspects of a contact network, therefore, not only has the potential of leading to valuable insights into how the behavior of individuals impacts spreading phenomena, but it may also open up possibilities for devising effective behavioral interventions. Because of the temporal nature of interactions - since the topology of the network, containing who is in contact with whom, when, for how long, and in which precise sequence, varies (rapidly) in time - analyzing them requires developing network methods and metrics that respect temporal variability, in contrast to those developed for static (i.e., time-invariant) networks. Here, by means of event mapping, we propose a method to quantify how quickly agents mingle by transforming temporal network data of agent contacts. We define a novel measure called 'contact sequence centrality', which quantifies the impact of an individual on the contact sequences, reflecting the individual's behavioral potential for spreading. Comparing contact sequence centrality across agents allows for ranking the impact of agents and identifying potential 'behavioral super-spreaders'. The method is applied to social interaction data collected at an art fair in Amsterdam. We relate the measure to the existing network metrics, both temporal and static, and find that (mostly at longer time scales) traditional metrics lose their resemblance to contact sequence centrality. Our work highlights the importance of accounting for the sequential nature of contacts when analyzing social interactions

Insomnia Really Hurts: Effect of a Bad Night's Sleep on Pain Increases With Insomnia Severity

Insomnia and chronic pain are highly prevalent conditions and are often comorbid. Somatic complaints other than pain are also often observed in insomnia. Poor sleep and pain are known to mutually reinforce each other. However, it is unknown whether the habitual severity of insomnia modulates the acute effect of a particularly bad night's sleep on the next day's pain severity, and whether it modulates the acute effect of pain on the following night's sleep quality. Using data from 3,508 volunteers (2,684 female, mean age 50.09 y), we addressed these questions in addition to the associations between the habitual severity of insomnia, somatic complaints, and pain. Results indicated that people suffering from more severe habitual insomnia showed stronger mutual acute within-day reactivity of pain and poor sleep quality. The same increased reactivity was found in people with more severe habitual pain. Interestingly, the acute within-day mutual reactivity of pain and sleep quality showed consistent asymmetry. Pain worsened more after a particularly bad night's sleep than it improved after a particularly good night's sleep. Likewise, sleep worsened more after a day with more-than-usual pain than it improved after a day with less-than-usual pain. Future interventions may profit from addressing this asymmetric mutual reactivity especially in people with severe comorbid insomnia and chronic pain

Differential impact of preventive cognitive therapy while tapering antidepressants versus maintenance antidepressant treatment on affect fluctuations and individual affect networks and impact on relapse:a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Background: There is an urgent need to better understand and prevent relapse in major depressive disorder (MDD). We explored the differential impact of various MDD relapse prevention strategies (pharmacological and/or psychological) on affect fluctuations and individual affect networks in a randomised setting, and their predictive value for relapse. Methods: We did a secondary analysis using experience sampling methodology (ESM) data from individuals with remitted recurrent depression that was collected alongside a randomised controlled trial that ran in the Netherlands, comparing: (I) tapering antidepressants while receiving preventive cognitive therapy (PCT), (II) combining antidepressants with PCT, or (III) continuing antidepressants without PCT, for the prevention of depressive relapse, as well as ESM data from 11 healthy controls. Participants had multiple past depressive episodes, but were remitted for at least 8 weeks and on antidepressants for at least six months. Exclusion criteria were: current (hypo)mania, current alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety disorder that required treatment, psychological treatment more than twice per month, a diagnosis of organic brain damage, or a history of bipolar disorder or psychosis. Fluctuations (within-person variance, root mean square of successive differences, autocorrelation) in negative and positive affect were calculated. Changes in individual affect networks during treatment were modelled using time-varying vector autoregression, both with and without applying regularisation. We explored whether affect fluctuations or changes in affect networks over time differed between treatment conditions or relapse outcomes, and predicted relapse during 2-year follow-up. This ESM study was registered at ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN15472145. Findings: Between Jan 1, 2014, and Jan 31, 2015, 72 study participants were recruited, 42 of whom were included in the analyses. We found no indication that affect fluctuations differed between treatment groups, nor that they predicted relapse. We observed large individual differences in affect network structure across participants (irrespective of treatment or relapse status) and in healthy controls. We found no indication of group-level differences in how much networks changed over time, nor that changes in networks over time predicted time to relapse (regularised models: hazard ratios [HR] 1063, 95% CI &lt;0.0001–&gt;10 000, p = 0.65; non-regularised models: HR 2.54, 95% CI 0.23–28.7, p = 0.45) or occurrence of relapse (regularised models: odds ratios [OR] 22.84, 95% CI &lt;0.0001–&gt;10 000, p = 0.90; non-regularised models: OR 7.57, 95% CI 0.07–3709.54, p = 0.44) during complete follow-up. Interpretation: Our findings should be interpreted with caution, given the exploratory nature of this study and wide confidence intervals. While group-level differences in affect dynamics cannot be ruled out due to low statistical power, visual inspection of individual affect networks also revealed no meaningful patterns in relation to MDD relapse. More studies are needed to assess whether affect dynamics as informed by ESM may predict relapse or guide personalisation of MDD relapse prevention in daily practice. Funding: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Dutch Research Council, University of Amsterdam.</p

Differential impact of preventive cognitive therapy while tapering antidepressants versus maintenance antidepressant treatment on affect fluctuations and individual affect networks and impact on relapse:a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Background: There is an urgent need to better understand and prevent relapse in major depressive disorder (MDD). We explored the differential impact of various MDD relapse prevention strategies (pharmacological and/or psychological) on affect fluctuations and individual affect networks in a randomised setting, and their predictive value for relapse. Methods: We did a secondary analysis using experience sampling methodology (ESM) data from individuals with remitted recurrent depression that was collected alongside a randomised controlled trial that ran in the Netherlands, comparing: (I) tapering antidepressants while receiving preventive cognitive therapy (PCT), (II) combining antidepressants with PCT, or (III) continuing antidepressants without PCT, for the prevention of depressive relapse, as well as ESM data from 11 healthy controls. Participants had multiple past depressive episodes, but were remitted for at least 8 weeks and on antidepressants for at least six months. Exclusion criteria were: current (hypo)mania, current alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety disorder that required treatment, psychological treatment more than twice per month, a diagnosis of organic brain damage, or a history of bipolar disorder or psychosis. Fluctuations (within-person variance, root mean square of successive differences, autocorrelation) in negative and positive affect were calculated. Changes in individual affect networks during treatment were modelled using time-varying vector autoregression, both with and without applying regularisation. We explored whether affect fluctuations or changes in affect networks over time differed between treatment conditions or relapse outcomes, and predicted relapse during 2-year follow-up. This ESM study was registered at ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN15472145. Findings: Between Jan 1, 2014, and Jan 31, 2015, 72 study participants were recruited, 42 of whom were included in the analyses. We found no indication that affect fluctuations differed between treatment groups, nor that they predicted relapse. We observed large individual differences in affect network structure across participants (irrespective of treatment or relapse status) and in healthy controls. We found no indication of group-level differences in how much networks changed over time, nor that changes in networks over time predicted time to relapse (regularised models: hazard ratios [HR] 1063, 95% CI &lt;0.0001–&gt;10 000, p = 0.65; non-regularised models: HR 2.54, 95% CI 0.23–28.7, p = 0.45) or occurrence of relapse (regularised models: odds ratios [OR] 22.84, 95% CI &lt;0.0001–&gt;10 000, p = 0.90; non-regularised models: OR 7.57, 95% CI 0.07–3709.54, p = 0.44) during complete follow-up. Interpretation: Our findings should be interpreted with caution, given the exploratory nature of this study and wide confidence intervals. While group-level differences in affect dynamics cannot be ruled out due to low statistical power, visual inspection of individual affect networks also revealed no meaningful patterns in relation to MDD relapse. More studies are needed to assess whether affect dynamics as informed by ESM may predict relapse or guide personalisation of MDD relapse prevention in daily practice. Funding: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Dutch Research Council, University of Amsterdam.</p

Differential impact of preventive cognitive therapy while tapering antidepressants versus maintenance antidepressant treatment on affect fluctuations and individual affect networks and impact on relapse:a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Background: There is an urgent need to better understand and prevent relapse in major depressive disorder (MDD). We explored the differential impact of various MDD relapse prevention strategies (pharmacological and/or psychological) on affect fluctuations and individual affect networks in a randomised setting, and their predictive value for relapse. Methods: We did a secondary analysis using experience sampling methodology (ESM) data from individuals with remitted recurrent depression that was collected alongside a randomised controlled trial that ran in the Netherlands, comparing: (I) tapering antidepressants while receiving preventive cognitive therapy (PCT), (II) combining antidepressants with PCT, or (III) continuing antidepressants without PCT, for the prevention of depressive relapse, as well as ESM data from 11 healthy controls. Participants had multiple past depressive episodes, but were remitted for at least 8 weeks and on antidepressants for at least six months. Exclusion criteria were: current (hypo)mania, current alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety disorder that required treatment, psychological treatment more than twice per month, a diagnosis of organic brain damage, or a history of bipolar disorder or psychosis. Fluctuations (within-person variance, root mean square of successive differences, autocorrelation) in negative and positive affect were calculated. Changes in individual affect networks during treatment were modelled using time-varying vector autoregression, both with and without applying regularisation. We explored whether affect fluctuations or changes in affect networks over time differed between treatment conditions or relapse outcomes, and predicted relapse during 2-year follow-up. This ESM study was registered at ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN15472145. Findings: Between Jan 1, 2014, and Jan 31, 2015, 72 study participants were recruited, 42 of whom were included in the analyses. We found no indication that affect fluctuations differed between treatment groups, nor that they predicted relapse. We observed large individual differences in affect network structure across participants (irrespective of treatment or relapse status) and in healthy controls. We found no indication of group-level differences in how much networks changed over time, nor that changes in networks over time predicted time to relapse (regularised models: hazard ratios [HR] 1063, 95% CI &lt;0.0001–&gt;10 000, p = 0.65; non-regularised models: HR 2.54, 95% CI 0.23–28.7, p = 0.45) or occurrence of relapse (regularised models: odds ratios [OR] 22.84, 95% CI &lt;0.0001–&gt;10 000, p = 0.90; non-regularised models: OR 7.57, 95% CI 0.07–3709.54, p = 0.44) during complete follow-up. Interpretation: Our findings should be interpreted with caution, given the exploratory nature of this study and wide confidence intervals. While group-level differences in affect dynamics cannot be ruled out due to low statistical power, visual inspection of individual affect networks also revealed no meaningful patterns in relation to MDD relapse. More studies are needed to assess whether affect dynamics as informed by ESM may predict relapse or guide personalisation of MDD relapse prevention in daily practice. Funding: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Dutch Research Council, University of Amsterdam.</p

Differential impact of preventive cognitive therapy while tapering antidepressants versus maintenance antidepressant treatment on affect fluctuations and individual affect networks and impact on relapse:a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Background: There is an urgent need to better understand and prevent relapse in major depressive disorder (MDD). We explored the differential impact of various MDD relapse prevention strategies (pharmacological and/or psychological) on affect fluctuations and individual affect networks in a randomised setting, and their predictive value for relapse. Methods: We did a secondary analysis using experience sampling methodology (ESM) data from individuals with remitted recurrent depression that was collected alongside a randomised controlled trial that ran in the Netherlands, comparing: (I) tapering antidepressants while receiving preventive cognitive therapy (PCT), (II) combining antidepressants with PCT, or (III) continuing antidepressants without PCT, for the prevention of depressive relapse, as well as ESM data from 11 healthy controls. Participants had multiple past depressive episodes, but were remitted for at least 8 weeks and on antidepressants for at least six months. Exclusion criteria were: current (hypo)mania, current alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety disorder that required treatment, psychological treatment more than twice per month, a diagnosis of organic brain damage, or a history of bipolar disorder or psychosis. Fluctuations (within-person variance, root mean square of successive differences, autocorrelation) in negative and positive affect were calculated. Changes in individual affect networks during treatment were modelled using time-varying vector autoregression, both with and without applying regularisation. We explored whether affect fluctuations or changes in affect networks over time differed between treatment conditions or relapse outcomes, and predicted relapse during 2-year follow-up. This ESM study was registered at ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN15472145. Findings: Between Jan 1, 2014, and Jan 31, 2015, 72 study participants were recruited, 42 of whom were included in the analyses. We found no indication that affect fluctuations differed between treatment groups, nor that they predicted relapse. We observed large individual differences in affect network structure across participants (irrespective of treatment or relapse status) and in healthy controls. We found no indication of group-level differences in how much networks changed over time, nor that changes in networks over time predicted time to relapse (regularised models: hazard ratios [HR] 1063, 95% CI &lt;0.0001–&gt;10 000, p = 0.65; non-regularised models: HR 2.54, 95% CI 0.23–28.7, p = 0.45) or occurrence of relapse (regularised models: odds ratios [OR] 22.84, 95% CI &lt;0.0001–&gt;10 000, p = 0.90; non-regularised models: OR 7.57, 95% CI 0.07–3709.54, p = 0.44) during complete follow-up. Interpretation: Our findings should be interpreted with caution, given the exploratory nature of this study and wide confidence intervals. While group-level differences in affect dynamics cannot be ruled out due to low statistical power, visual inspection of individual affect networks also revealed no meaningful patterns in relation to MDD relapse. More studies are needed to assess whether affect dynamics as informed by ESM may predict relapse or guide personalisation of MDD relapse prevention in daily practice. Funding: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Dutch Research Council, University of Amsterdam.</p

Differential impact of preventive cognitive therapy while tapering antidepressants versus maintenance antidepressant treatment on affect fluctuations and individual affect networks and impact on relapse:a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Background: There is an urgent need to better understand and prevent relapse in major depressive disorder (MDD). We explored the differential impact of various MDD relapse prevention strategies (pharmacological and/or psychological) on affect fluctuations and individual affect networks in a randomised setting, and their predictive value for relapse. Methods: We did a secondary analysis using experience sampling methodology (ESM) data from individuals with remitted recurrent depression that was collected alongside a randomised controlled trial that ran in the Netherlands, comparing: (I) tapering antidepressants while receiving preventive cognitive therapy (PCT), (II) combining antidepressants with PCT, or (III) continuing antidepressants without PCT, for the prevention of depressive relapse, as well as ESM data from 11 healthy controls. Participants had multiple past depressive episodes, but were remitted for at least 8 weeks and on antidepressants for at least six months. Exclusion criteria were: current (hypo)mania, current alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety disorder that required treatment, psychological treatment more than twice per month, a diagnosis of organic brain damage, or a history of bipolar disorder or psychosis. Fluctuations (within-person variance, root mean square of successive differences, autocorrelation) in negative and positive affect were calculated. Changes in individual affect networks during treatment were modelled using time-varying vector autoregression, both with and without applying regularisation. We explored whether affect fluctuations or changes in affect networks over time differed between treatment conditions or relapse outcomes, and predicted relapse during 2-year follow-up. This ESM study was registered at ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN15472145. Findings: Between Jan 1, 2014, and Jan 31, 2015, 72 study participants were recruited, 42 of whom were included in the analyses. We found no indication that affect fluctuations differed between treatment groups, nor that they predicted relapse. We observed large individual differences in affect network structure across participants (irrespective of treatment or relapse status) and in healthy controls. We found no indication of group-level differences in how much networks changed over time, nor that changes in networks over time predicted time to relapse (regularised models: hazard ratios [HR] 1063, 95% CI &lt;0.0001–&gt;10 000, p = 0.65; non-regularised models: HR 2.54, 95% CI 0.23–28.7, p = 0.45) or occurrence of relapse (regularised models: odds ratios [OR] 22.84, 95% CI &lt;0.0001–&gt;10 000, p = 0.90; non-regularised models: OR 7.57, 95% CI 0.07–3709.54, p = 0.44) during complete follow-up. Interpretation: Our findings should be interpreted with caution, given the exploratory nature of this study and wide confidence intervals. While group-level differences in affect dynamics cannot be ruled out due to low statistical power, visual inspection of individual affect networks also revealed no meaningful patterns in relation to MDD relapse. More studies are needed to assess whether affect dynamics as informed by ESM may predict relapse or guide personalisation of MDD relapse prevention in daily practice. Funding: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Dutch Research Council, University of Amsterdam.</p

A multidisciplinary perspective on COVID-19 exit strategies

Lockdowns and associated measures imposed in response to the COVID-19 crisis inflict severe damage to society. Across the globe, scientists and policymakers study ways to lift measures while maintaining control of virus spread in circumstances that continuously change due to the evolution of new variants and increasing vaccination coverage. In this process, it has become clear that finding and analysing exit strategies, which are a key aspect of pandemic mitigation in all consecutive waves of infection, is not solely a matter of epidemiological modeling but has many different dimensions that need to be balanced and therefore requires input from many different disciplines. Here, we document an attempt to investigate exit strategies from a multidisciplinary perspective through the Science versus Corona project in the Netherlands. In this project, scientists and laypeople were challenged to submit (components of) exit strategies. A selection of these were implemented in a formal model, and we have evaluated the scenarios from a multidisciplinary perspective, utilizing expertise in epidemiology, economics, psychology, law, mathematics, and history. We argue for the integration of multidisciplinary perspectives on COVID-19 and more generally in pandemic mitigation, highlight open challenges, and present an agenda for further research into exit strategies and their assessmen

Genome-wide association analysis of insomnia complaints identifies risk genes and genetic overlap with psychiatric and metabolic traits.

To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked FilesPersistent insomnia is among the most frequent complaints in general practice. To identify genetic factors for insomnia complaints, we performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) and a genome-wide gene-based association study (GWGAS) in 113,006 individuals. We identify three loci and seven genes associated with insomnia complaints, with the associations for one locus and five genes supported by joint analysis with an independent sample (n = 7,565). Our top association (MEIS1, P < 5 × 10-8) has previously been implicated in restless legs syndrome (RLS). Additional analyses favor the hypothesis that MEIS1 exhibits pleiotropy for insomnia and RLS and show that the observed association with insomnia complaints cannot be explained only by the presence of an RLS subgroup within the cases. Sex-specific analyses suggest that there are different genetic architectures between the sexes in addition to shared genetic factors. We show substantial positive genetic correlation of insomnia complaints with internalizing personality traits and metabolic traits and negative correlation with subjective well-being and educational attainment. These findings provide new insight into the genetic architecture of insomnia.Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research NWO Brain & Cognition 433-09-228 European Research Council ERC-ADG-2014-671084 INSOMNIA Netherlands Scientific Organization (NWO) VU University (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) Dutch Brain Foundation Helmholtz Zentrum Munchen - German Federal Ministry of Education and Research state of Bavaria German Migraine & Headache Society (DMKG) Almirall AstraZeneca Berlin Chemie Boehringer Boots Health Care GlaxoSmithKline Janssen Cilag McNeil Pharma MSD Sharp Dohme Pfizer Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine at the University of Munster German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) German Restless Legs Patient Organisation (RLS Deutsche Restless Legs Vereinigung) Swiss RLS Patient Association (Schweizerische Restless Legs Selbsthilfegruppe