Public health in genetic spaces: a statistical framework to optimize cluster-based outbreak detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genetic clustering is a popular method for characterizing variation in transmission rates for rapidly evolving viruses, and could potentially be used to detect outbreaks in ‘near real time’. However, the statistical properties of clustering are poorly understood in this context, and there are no objective guidelines for setting clustering criteria. Here, we develop a new statistical framework to optimize a genetic clustering method based on the ability to forecast new cases. We analysed the pairwise Tamura-Nei (TN93) genetic distances for anonymized HIV-1 subtype B pol sequences from Seattle (n = 1,653) and Middle Tennessee, USA (n = 2,779), and northern Alberta, Canada (n = 809). Under varying TN93 thresholds, we fit two models to the distributions of new cases relative to clusters of known cases: 1, a null model that assumes cluster growth is strictly proportional to cluster size, i.e. no variation in transmission rates among individuals; and 2, a weighted model that incorporates individual-level covariates, such as recency of diagnosis. The optimal threshold maximizes the difference in information loss between models, where covariates are used most effectively. Optimal TN93 thresholds varied substantially between data sets, e.g. 0.0104 in Alberta and 0.016 in Seattle and Tennessee, such that the optimum for one population would potentially misdirect prevention efforts in another. For a given population, the range of thresholds where the weighted model conferred greater predictive accuracy tended to be narrow (±0.005 units), and the optimal threshold tended to be stable over time. Our framework also indicated that variation in the recency of HIV diagnosis among clusters was significantly more predictive of new cases than sample collection dates (ΔAIC > 50). These results suggest that one cannot rely on historical precedence or convention to configure genetic clustering methods for public health applications, especially when translating methods between settings of low-level and generalized epidemics. Our framework not only enables investigators to calibrate a clustering method to a specific public health setting, but also provides a variable selection procedure to evaluate different predictive models of cluster growth.
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 | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".