Phylogenies from dynamic networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between the underlying contact network over which a pathogen spreads and the pathogen phylogenetic trees that are obtained presents an opportunity to use sequence data to learn about contact networks that are difficult to study empirically. However, this relationship is not explicitly known and is usually studied in simulations, often with the simplifying assumption that the contact network is static in time, though human contact networks are dynamic. We simulate pathogen phylogenetic trees on dynamic Erdős-Renyi random networks and on two dynamic networks with skewed degree distribution, of which one is additionally clustered. We use tree shape features to explore how adding dynamics changes the relationships between the overall network structure and phylogenies. Our tree features include the number of small substructures (cherries, pitchforks) in the trees, measures of tree imbalance (Sackin index, Colless index), features derived from network science (diameter, closeness), as well as features using the internal branch lengths from the tip to the root. Using principal component analysis we find that the network dynamics influence the shapes of phylogenies, as does the network type. We also compare dynamic and time-integrated static networks. We find, in particular, that static network models like the widely used Barabasi-Albert model can be poor approximations for dynamic networks. We explore the effects of mis-specifying the network on the performance of classifiers trained identify the transmission rate (using supervised learning methods). We find that both mis-specification of the underlying network and its parameters (mean degree, turnover rate) have a strong adverse effect on the ability to estimate the transmission parameter. We illustrate these results by classifying HIV trees with a classifier that we trained on simulated trees from different networks, infection rates and turnover rates. Our results point to the importance of correctly estimating and modelling contact networks with dynamics when using phylodynamic tools to estimate epidemiological parameters.
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 | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".