Detection of HIV transmission hotspots in British Columbia, Canada: A novel framework for the prioritization and allocation of treatment and prevention resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identifying populations at high risk of HIV transmission is critical for prioritizing treatment and prevention resources and achieving the UNAIDS 90-90-90 Targets. METHODS: HIV transmission rates can be estimated from phylogenetic trees as viral lineage-level diversification rates. To identify HIV-1 transmission foci in British Columbia, Canada, we inferred diversification rates from phylogenetic trees of 36 271 HIV-1 sequences from 9630 anonymized individuals. Diversification rates were combined with sociodemographic and clinical data, then aggregated by patients' area of residence to predict the distribution of new HIV cases between 2008 and 2018. The predictive power of the model was compared with a phylogenetically uninformed model. FINDINGS: Aggregated diversification rate measures were predictive of new HIV cases in the subsequent year after adjusting for prevalent and incident cases in the previous year. For every one-unit increase in the mean of the top five diversification rates, the number of new HIV cases increased by on average 1·38-fold (95% CI, 1·28-1·49). In a blind prediction of 2018 cases, diversification rate improved the model's specificity by 12%, accuracy by 9%, top 20 agreement by 100%, and correlation of predicted and observed values by 162% relative to a model that incorporated epidemiological data alone. INTERPRETATION: By predicting the distribution of future HIV cases, a combined phylogenetic and epidemiological approach identifies hotspots where public health resources are needed most. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, University of British Columbia, Public Health Agency of Canada, Genome Canada, Genome BC, Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, and BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".