Predicting the short-term success of human influenza virus variants with machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seasonal influenza viruses are constantly changing and produce a different set of circulating strains each season. Small genetic changes can accumulate over time and result in antigenically different viruses; this may prevent the body's immune system from recognizing those viruses. Due to rapid mutations, in particular, in the haemagglutinin (HA) gene, seasonal influenza vaccines must be updated frequently. This requires choosing strains to include in the updates to maximize the vaccines' benefits, according to estimates of which strains will be circulating in upcoming seasons. This is a challenging prediction task. In this paper, we use longitudinally sampled phylogenetic trees based on HA sequences from human influenza viruses, together with counts of epitope site polymorphisms in HA, to predict which influenza virus strains are likely to be successful. We extract small groups of taxa (subtrees) and use a suite of features of these subtrees as key inputs to the machine learning tools. Using a range of training and testing strategies, including training on H3N2 and testing on H1N1, we find that successful prediction of future expansion of small subtrees is possible from these data, with accuracies of 0.71-0.85 and a classifier 'area under the curve' 0.75-0.9.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".