The EpiQuant Framework for Computing Epidemiological Concordance of Microbial Subtyping Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A fundamental assumption in the use and interpretation of microbial subtyping results for public health investigations is that isolates that appear to be related based on molecular subtyping data are expected to share commonalities with respect to their origin, history, and distribution. Critically, there is currently no approach for systematically assessing the underlying epidemiology of subtyping results. Our aim was to develop a method for directly quantifying the similarity between bacterial isolates using basic sampling metadata and to develop a framework for computing the epidemiological concordance of microbial typing results. We have developed an analytical model that summarizes the similarity of bacterial isolates using basic parameters typically provided in sampling records, using a novel framework (EpiQuant) developed in the R environment for statistical computing. We have applied the EpiQuant framework to a data set comprising 654 isolates of the enteric pathogen Campylobacter jejuni from Canadian surveillance data in order to examine the epidemiological concordance of clusters obtained by using two leading C. jejuni subtyping methods. The EpiQuant framework can be used to directly quantify the similarity of bacterial isolates based on basic sample metadata. These results can then be used to assess the concordance between microbial epidemiological and molecular data, facilitating the objective assessment of subtyping method performance and paving the way for the improved application of molecular subtyping data in investigations of infectious disease.
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 | 0.046 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".