Genomic variant identification methods alter <i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i> transmission inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Pathogen genomic data are increasingly used to characterize global and local transmission patterns of important human pathogens and to inform public health interventions. Yet there is no current consensus on how to measure genomic variation. We investigated the effects of variant identification approaches on transmission inferences for M. tuberculosis by comparing variants identified by five different groups in the same sequence data from a clonal outbreak. We then measured the performance of commonly used variant calling approaches in recovering variation in a simulated tuberculosis outbreak and tested the effect of applying increasingly stringent filters on transmission inferences and phylogenies. We found that variant calling approaches used by different groups do not recover consistent sets of variants, often leading to conflicting transmission inferences. Further, performance in recovering true outbreak variation varied widely across approaches. Finally, stringent filters rapidly eroded the accuracy of transmission inferences and quality of phylogenies reconstructed from outbreak variation. We conclude that measurements of genetic distance and phylogenetic structure are dependent on variant calling approach. Variant calling algorithms trained upon true sequence data outperform other approaches and enable inclusion of repetitive regions typically excluded from genomic epidemiology studies, maximizing the information gleaned from outbreak genomes.
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 | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".