Disentangling the rhythms of human activity in the built environment for airborne transmission risk: an analysis of large-scale mobility data

  1. Zachary Susswein
  2. Eva C Rest
  3. Shweta Bansal  Is a corresponding author
  1. Georgetown University, United States


Background: Since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, substantial public attention has focused on the role of seasonality in impacting transmission. Misconceptions have relied on seasonal mediation of respiratory diseases driven solely by environmental variables. However, seasonality is expected to be driven by host social behavior, particularly in highly susceptible populations. A key gap in understanding the role of social behavior in respiratory disease seasonality is our incomplete understanding of the seasonality of indoor human activity.

Methods: We leverage a novel data stream on human mobility to characterize activity in indoor versus outdoor environments in the United States. We use an observational mobile app-based location dataset encompassing over 5 million locations nationally. We classify locations as primarily indoor (e.g. stores, offices) or outdoor (e.g. playgrounds, farmers markets), disentangling location-specific visits into indoor and outdoor, to arrive at a fine-scale measure of indoor to outdoor human activity across time and space.

Results: We find the proportion of indoor to outdoor activity during a baseline year is seasonal, peaking in winter months. The measure displays a latitudinal gradient with stronger seasonality at northern latitudes and an additional summer peak in southern latitudes. We statistically fit this baseline indoor-outdoor activity measure to inform the incorporation of this complex empirical pattern into infectious disease dynamic models. However, we find that the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic caused these patterns to shift significantly from baseline, and the empirical patterns are necessary to predict spatiotemporal heterogeneity in disease dynamics.

Conclusions: Our work empirically characterizes, for the first time, the seasonality of human social behavior at a large scale with high spatiotemporal resolution, and provides a parsimonious parameterization of seasonal behavior that can be included in infectious disease dynamics models. We provide critical evidence and methods necessary to inform the public health of seasonal and pandemic respiratory pathogens and improve our understanding of the relationship between the physical environment and infection risk in the context of global change.

Funding: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01GM123007.

Data availability

We make available on Github the data and code needed to reproduce all figures and analyses in this manuscript: https://github.com/bansallab/indoor_outdoor. The dataset we provide is of the metric used in all our analyses and figures ("indoor activity"). This dataset can be regenerated using the Safegraph Weekly Patterns datasets found at https://docs.safegraph.com/docs/weekly-patterns and code in the Github repository.The Safegraph Weekly Patterns was made freely available to academics at a uniquely granular level in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Safegraph's business model involves selling these datasets to other corporations and, as a result, any data access agreement with the company forbids sharing of the raw data. The company does, however, make its data freely available to academics (for non-commercial use) through an institutional university subscription to Dewey or an individual data use agreement with Safegraph.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Zachary Susswein

    Department of Biology, Georgetown University, Washingston, United States
    Competing interests
    Zachary Susswein, is currently employed at the Rockefeller Foundation as a Data Analyst. The author has no other competing interests to declare..
  2. Eva C Rest

    Department of Biology, Georgetown University, Washingston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6461-3450
  3. Shweta Bansal

    Department of Biology, Georgetown University, Washingston, United States
    For correspondence
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1740-5421


National Institutes of Health (R01GM123007)

  • Zachary Susswein
  • Eva C Rest
  • Shweta Bansal

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Niel Hens, Hasselt University, Belgium


Human subjects: Ethical review for this study was sought from the Institutional Review Board at Georgetown University and the study was approved on October 14, 2020 (STUDY00003041). This is secondary data analysis, so no informed consent or consent to publish was necessary.

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: April 16, 2022 (view preprint)
  2. Received: May 21, 2022
  3. Accepted: March 20, 2023
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: April 4, 2023 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: April 20, 2023 (version 2)


© 2023, Susswein et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.


  • 733
  • 102
  • 9

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Zachary Susswein
  2. Eva C Rest
  3. Shweta Bansal
Disentangling the rhythms of human activity in the built environment for airborne transmission risk: an analysis of large-scale mobility data
eLife 12:e80466.

Share this article


Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Caroline Krag, Maria Saur Svane ... Tinne Laurberg
    Research Article


    Comorbidity with type 2 diabetes (T2D) results in worsening of cancer-specific and overall prognosis in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. The treatment of CRC per se may be diabetogenic. We assessed the impact of different types of surgical cancer resections and oncological treatment on risk of T2D development in CRC patients.


    We developed a population-based cohort study including all Danish CRC patients, who had undergone CRC surgery between 2001 and 2018. Using nationwide register data, we identified and followed patients from date of surgery and until new onset of T2D, death, or end of follow-up.


    In total, 46,373 CRC patients were included and divided into six groups according to type of surgical resection: 10,566 Right-No-Chemo (23%), 4645 Right-Chemo (10%), 10,151 Left-No-Chemo (22%), 5257 Left-Chemo (11%), 9618 Rectal-No-Chemo (21%), and 6136 Rectal-Chemo (13%). During 245,466 person-years of follow-up, 2556 patients developed T2D. The incidence rate (IR) of T2D was highest in the Left-Chemo group 11.3 (95% CI: 10.4–12.2) per 1000 person-years and lowest in the Rectal-No-Chemo group 9.6 (95% CI: 8.8–10.4). Between-group unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of developing T2D was similar and non-significant. In the adjusted analysis, Rectal-No-Chemo was associated with lower T2D risk (HR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75–0.98]) compared to Right-No-Chemo.

    For all six groups, an increased level of body mass index (BMI) resulted in a nearly twofold increased risk of developing T2D.


    This study suggests that postoperative T2D screening should be prioritised in CRC survivors with overweight/obesity regardless of type of CRC treatment applied.


    The Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF17SA0031406); TrygFonden (101390; 20045; 125132).

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Xiaoxin Yu, Roger S Zoh ... David B Allison
    Review Article

    We discuss 12 misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes concerning the use of covariates in observational or nonrandomized research. Additionally, we offer advice to help investigators, editors, reviewers, and readers make more informed decisions about conducting and interpreting research where the influence of covariates may be at issue. We primarily address misperceptions in the context of statistical management of the covariates through various forms of modeling, although we also emphasize design and model or variable selection. Other approaches to addressing the effects of covariates, including matching, have logical extensions from what we discuss here but are not dwelled upon heavily. The misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes we discuss include accurate representation of covariates, effects of measurement error, overreliance on covariate categorization, underestimation of power loss when controlling for covariates, misinterpretation of significance in statistical models, and misconceptions about confounding variables, selecting on a collider, and p value interpretations in covariate-inclusive analyses. This condensed overview serves to correct common errors and improve research quality in general and in nutrition research specifically.