MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884152559 · doi:10.1098/rsos.180113

Bayesian inference of antigenic and non-antigenic variables from haemagglutination inhibition assays for influenza surveillance

2018· article· en· W2884152559 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Emmanuel S. Adabor, Wilfred Ndifon

Bibliographic record

VenueRoyal Society Open Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsAntigenAntigenic driftVirologyAntigenic shiftBiologyAntigenic variationVirusAvidityInfluenza A virusEpitopeOrthomyxoviridaeImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Haemagglutination inhibition (HI) assays are typically used for comparing and characterizing influenza viruses. Data obtained from the assays (titres) are used quantitatively to determine antigenic differences between influenza strains. However, the use of these titres has been criticized as they sometimes fail to capture accurate antigenic differences between strains. Our previous analytical work revealed how antigenic and non-antigenic variables contribute to the titres. Building on this previous work, we have developed a Bayesian method for decoupling antigenic and non-antigenic contributions to the titres in this paper. We apply this method to a compendium of HI titres of influenza A (H3N2) viruses curated from 1968 to 2016. Remarkably, the results of this fit indicate that the non-antigenic variable, which is inversely correlated with viral avidity for the red blood cells used in HI assays, oscillates during the course of influenza virus evolution, with a period that corresponds roughly to the timescale on which antigenic variants replace each other. Together, the results suggest that the new Bayesian method is applicable to the analysis of long-term dynamics of both antigenic and non-antigenic properties of influenza virus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoyal Society Open ScienceSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207