HIV-1 Transmission Clustering and Phylodynamics Highlight the Important Role of Young Men Who Have Sex with Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More persons living with HIV reside in the Southern United States than in any other region, yet little is known about HIV molecular epidemiology in the South. We used cluster and phylodynamic analyses to evaluate HIV transmission patterns in middle Tennessee. We performed cross-sectional analyses of HIV-1 pol sequences and clinical data collected from 2001 to 2015 among persons attending the Vanderbilt Comprehensive Care Clinic. Transmission clusters were identified using maximum likelihood phylogenetics and patristic distance differences. Demographic, risk behavior, and clinical factors were assessed evaluating "active" clusters (clusters including sequences sampled 2011-2015) and associations estimated with logistic regression. Transmission risk ratios for men who have sex with men (MSM) were estimated with phylodynamic models. Among 2915 persons (96% subtype-B sequences), 963 (33%) were members of 292 clusters (distance ≤1.5%, size range 2-39). Most clusters (62%, n = 690 persons) were active, either being newly identified (n = 80) or showing expansion on existing clusters (n = 101). Correlates of active clustering among persons with sequences collected during 2011-2015 included MSM risk and ≤30 years of age. Active clusters were significantly more concentrated in MSM and younger persons than historical clusters. Young MSM (YMSM) (≤26.4 years) had high estimated transmission risk [risk ratio = 4.04 (2.85-5.65) relative to older MSM] and were much more likely to transmit to YMSM. In this Tennessee cohort, transmission clusters over time were more concentrated by MSM and younger age, with high transmission risk among and between YMSM, highlighting the importance of interventions among this group. Detecting active clusters could help direct interventions to disrupt ongoing transmission chains.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".