Phylogenetic tree shapes resolve disease transmission patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Whole-genome sequencing is becoming popular as a tool for understanding outbreaks of communicable diseases, with phylogenetic trees being used to identify individual transmission events or to characterize outbreak-level overall transmission dynamics. Existing methods to infer transmission dynamics from sequence data rely on well-characterized infectious periods, epidemiological and clinical metadata which may not always be available, and typically require computationally intensive analysis focusing on the branch lengths in phylogenetic trees. We sought to determine whether the topological structures of phylogenetic trees contain signatures of the transmission patterns underlying an outbreak. METHODOLOGY: We use simulated outbreaks to train and then test computational classifiers. We test the method on data from two real-world outbreaks. RESULTS: We show that different transmission patterns result in quantitatively different phylogenetic tree shapes. We describe topological features that summarize a phylogeny's structure and find that computational classifiers based on these are capable of predicting an outbreak's transmission dynamics. The method is robust to variations in the transmission parameters and network types, and recapitulates known epidemiology of previously characterized real-world outbreaks. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There are simple structural properties of phylogenetic trees which, when combined, can distinguish communicable disease outbreaks with a super-spreader, homogeneous transmission and chains of transmission. This is possible using genome data alone, and can be done during an outbreak. We discuss the implications for management of outbreaks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".