Assessment of Overlap of Phylogenetic Transmission Clusters and Communities in Simple Sexual Contact Networks: Applications to HIV-1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transmission patterns of sexually-transmitted infections (STIs) could relate to the structure of the underlying sexual contact network, whose features are therefore of interest to clinicians. Conventionally, we represent sexual contacts in a population with a graph, that can reveal the existence of communities. Phylogenetic methods help infer the history of an epidemic and incidentally, may help detecting communities. In particular, phylogenetic analyses of HIV-1 epidemics among men who have sex with men (MSM) have revealed the existence of large transmission clusters, possibly resulting from within-community transmissions. Past studies have explored the association between contact networks and phylogenies, including transmission clusters, producing conflicting conclusions about whether network features significantly affect observed transmission history. As far as we know however, none of them thoroughly investigated the role of communities, defined with respect to the network graph, in the observation of clusters. METHODS: The present study investigates, through simulations, community detection from phylogenies. We simulate a large number of epidemics over both unweighted and weighted, undirected random interconnected-islands networks, with islands corresponding to communities. We use weighting to modulate distance between islands. We translate each epidemic into a phylogeny, that lets us partition our samples of infected subjects into transmission clusters, based on several common definitions from the literature. We measure similarity between subjects' island membership indices and transmission cluster membership indices with the adjusted Rand index. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Analyses reveal modest mean correspondence between communities in graphs and phylogenetic transmission clusters. We conclude that common methods often have limited success in detecting contact network communities from phylogenies. The rarely-fulfilled requirement that network communities correspond to clades in the phylogeny is their main drawback. Understanding the link between transmission clusters and communities in sexual contact networks could help inform policymaking to curb HIV incidence in MSMs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".