Phylogenetic Tools for Generalized HIV-1 Epidemics: Findings from the PANGEA-HIV Methods Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Viral phylogenetic methods contribute to understanding how HIV spreads in populations, and thereby help guide the design of prevention interventions. So far, most analyses have been applied to well-sampled concentrated HIV-1 epidemics in wealthy countries. To direct the use of phylogenetic tools to where the impact of HIV-1 is greatest, the Phylogenetics And Networks for Generalized HIV Epidemics in Africa (PANGEA-HIV) consortium generates full-genome viral sequences from across sub-Saharan Africa. Analyzing these data presents new challenges, since epidemics are principally driven by heterosexual transmission and a smaller fraction of cases is sampled. Here, we show that viral phylogenetic tools can be adapted and used to estimate epidemiological quantities of central importance to HIV-1 prevention in sub-Saharan Africa. We used a community-wide methods comparison exercise on simulated data, where participants were blinded to the true dynamics they were inferring. Two distinct simulations captured generalized HIV-1 epidemics, before and after a large community-level intervention that reduced infection levels. Five research groups participated. Structured coalescent modeling approaches were most successful: phylogenetic estimates of HIV-1 incidence, incidence reductions, and the proportion of transmissions from individuals in their first 3 months of infection correlated with the true values (Pearson correlation > 90%), with small bias. However, on some simulations, true values were markedly outside reported confidence or credibility intervals. The blinded comparison revealed current limits and strengths in using HIV phylogenetics in challenging settings, provided benchmarks for future methods' development, and supports using the latest generation of phylogenetic tools to advance HIV surveillance and prevention.
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 | 0.206 | 0.406 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".