MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923658950 · doi:10.1097/coh.0000000000000539

Comparative analysis of HIV sequences in real time for public health

2019· review· en· W2923658950 on OpenAlexaff
Joel O. Wertheim, Connor Chato, Art F. Y. Poon

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Public healthCluster analysisData scienceCluster (spacecraft)Data miningComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligenceFamily medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this study is to summarize recent advances in public health applications of comparative methods for HIV-1 sequence analysis in real time, including genetic clustering methods. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the past 2 years, several groups have reported the deployment of established genetic clustering methods to guide public health decisions for HIV prevention in 'near real time'. However, it remains unresolved how well the readouts of comparative methods like clusters translate to events that are actionable for public health. A small number of recent studies have begun to elucidate the linkage between clusters and HIV-1 incidence, whereas others continue to refine and develop new comparative methods for such applications. SUMMARY: Although the use of established methods to cluster HIV-1 sequence databases has become a widespread activity, there remains a critical gap between clusters and public health value.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDSSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207