Estimating the Relative Probability of Direct Transmission between Infectious Disease Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Estimating infectious disease parameters such as the serial interval (time between symptom onset in primary and secondary cases) and reproductive number (average number of secondary cases produced by a primary case) are important to understand infectious disease dynamics. Many estimation methods require linking cases by direct transmission, a difficult task for most diseases. Methods Using a subset of cases with detailed genetic or contact investigation data to develop a training set of probable transmission events, we build a model to estimate the relative transmission probability for all case-pairs from demographic, spatial and clinical data. Our method is based on naive Bayes, a machine learning classification algorithm which uses the observed frequencies in the training dataset to estimate the probability that a pair is linked given a set of covariates. Results In simulations we find that the probabilities estimated using genetic distance between cases to define training transmission events are able to distinguish between truly linked and unlinked pairs with high accuracy (area under the receiver operating curve value of 95%). Additionally only a subset of the cases, 10-50% depending on sample size, need to have detailed genetic data for our method to perform well. We show how these probabilities can be used to estimate the average effective reproductive number and apply our method to a tuberculosis outbreak in Hamburg, Germany. Conclusions Our method is a novel way to infer transmission dynamics in any dataset when only a subset of cases has rich contact investigation and/or genetic data. KEY MESSAGES This method provides a way to calculate the relative probability that two infectious disease patients are connected by direct transmission using clinical, demographic, geographic, and genetic characteristics. We use a naïve Bayes, a machine learning technique to estimate these probabilities using a training set of probable links defined by contact investigation or pathogen WGS data on a subset of cases. These probabilities can be used to explore possible transmission chains, rule out transmission events, and estimate the reproductive number.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".