Impacts and shortcomings of genetic clustering methods for infectious disease outbreaks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For infectious diseases, a genetic cluster is a group of closely related infections that is usually interpreted as representing a recent outbreak of transmission. Genetic clustering methods are becoming increasingly popular for molecular epidemiology, especially in the context of HIV where there is now considerable interest in applying these methods to prioritize groups for public health resources such as pre-exposure prophylaxis. To date, genetic clustering has generally been performed with ad hoc algorithms, only some of which have since been encoded and distributed as free software. These algorithms have seldom been validated on simulated data where clusters are known, and their interpretation and similarities are not transparent to users outside of the field. Here, I provide a brief overview on the development and inter-relationships of genetic clustering methods, and an evaluation of six methods on data simulated under an epidemic model in a risk-structured population. The simulation analysis demonstrates that the majority of clustering methods are systematically biased to detect variation in sampling rates among subpopulations, not variation in transmission rates. I discuss these results in the context of previous work and the implications for public health applications of genetic clustering.
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 | 0.061 | 0.255 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".