Evolution of the IS <i>6110-</i> Based Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism Pattern during the Transmission of <i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interpretation of the molecular epidemiological data of Mycobacterium tuberculosis is dependent on the validity of the assumptions that have been made. It is assumed that the IS6110 banding pattern is sufficiently stable to define epidemiological events representing ongoing transmission. However, molecular epidemiological data also support the observation that the IS6110 banding pattern may change over time. Factors affecting this rate may include the nature and duration of disease in a host and the opportunity to experience different host environments during the transmission cycle. To estimate the rate of IS6110 change occurring during the process of transmission, M. tuberculosis isolates from epidemiologically linked patients were genotypically characterized by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis. The identification of IS6110 banding pattern changes during ongoing transmission suggested that a rate could be estimated. IS6110 change was significantly associated with strains with >5 IS6110 elements (P = 0.013) and was not observed in low-copy-number isolates. The minimum rate of appearance of variant strains was calculated to be 0.14 variant cases per source-case per year. This data suggest that clustering of isolates based on identical RFLP patterns is expected to underestimate transmission in patients infected with high-copy-number isolates. A model based on the rate of appearance of both variant and invariant strains demonstrates that the genotypically defined population structure may change by 18.6% during the study period of approximately 6.5 years. The implications for the use of RFLP data for epidemiologic study are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".