The influenza network

Finally, some good news arrives for the socially awkward. A new study published in the journal PLoS One, has found that those who have a wider social network may catch the flu sooner than others. The researchers believe that the study’s findings can enhance strategies for disease survelliance, as well as improve control of infectious diseases.

The study consisted of 319 randomly chosen Harvard undergraduate students. As explained in the study’s news release, those students were asked to name two or three friends, which created a list of 425 additional students (some were named more than once). The research was based off of the “friendship paradox” which states that when an individual names a friend, on average that friend will have a larger social network than the individual who named them. Both groups of students were monitored throughout the 2009 flu season.

Approximately one-third of the students caught the flu based on self-reported data, as well as reports from Harvard University Health Services. It was found that the group of 425 friends came down with the flu an average of 14 days sooner than the random control group, CNN reports. The researchers also found that the flu epidemic peaked in the “friends” group 46 days before it peaked in the general Harvard student population.

Lead study author Nicholas Christakis, a professor at Harvard Medical School, says in the study’s news release:

“We think this may have significant implications for public health… Public health officials often track epidemics by following random samples of people or monitoring people after they get sick. But that approach only provides a snapshot of what’s currently happening. By simply asking members of the random group to name friends, and then tracking and comparing both groups, we can predict epidemics before they strike the population at large. This would allow an earlier, more vigorous, and more effective response.”

Beware the bobsled

The 2010 Winter Olympics may have ended months ago, but a new study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine is only now counting up the cost: one in 10 Olympians experienced an injury and one in 14 suffered an illness.

The researchers analyzed information from the 82 national team doctors, which included reports of 287 injuries and 185 illnesses. Meaning out of the 2,567 Olympians, 11.2 percent experienced at least one injury, notes the LA Times.  About 22 percent of those injuries resulted in athletes being unable to compete in their sport.

According to HealthDay, female athletes experienced a higher injury rate than men – 131.1 per 1,000 compared to 93.3 per 1,000.

What were the most dangerous winter sports? Bobsledding, ice hockey, short-track skating, alpine freestyle skiing, snowboard halfpipe and snowboard cross were associated with the most injuries. Olympians competing in Nordic skiing events, as well as luge, curling, speed skating, and freestyle moguls had the lowest risk of injury.

The head, spine, and knees were the most common injured areas of the body, and the most common types of injuries were bruising, ligament and muscular sprains.

HealthDay reports these additional findings:

There was one death — an athlete who died while training for luge.

About 20 percent of female athletes in bobsled, ice hockey, snowboard cross and in freestyle cross and aerials suffered an injury. Just under 28 percent of male athletes were injured in short track, 17 percent in bobsled, and just under 16 percent in hockey.

About 10 percent of athletes in skeleton, figure and speed skating, curling, snowboard cross and biathlon had at least one illness, 62 percent of which were respiratory infections.