Transmission trees on a known pathogen phylogeny: enumeration and sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One approach to the reconstruction of infectious disease transmission trees from pathogen genomic data has been to use a phylogenetic tree, reconstructed from pathogen sequences, and annotate its internal nodes to provide a reconstruction of which host each lineage was in at each point in time. If only one pathogen lineage can be transmitted to a new host (i.e. the transmission bottleneck is complete), this corresponds to partitioning the nodes of the phylogeny into connected regions, each of which represents evolution in an individual host. These partitions define the possible transmission trees that are consistent with a given phylogenetic tree. However, the mathematical properties of the transmission trees given a phylogeny remain largely unexplored. Here, we describe a procedure to calculate the number of possible transmission trees for a given phylogeny, and we show how to uniformly sample from these transmission trees. The procedure is outlined for situations where one sample is available from each host and trees do not have branch lengths, and we also provide extensions for incomplete sampling, multiple sampling, and the application to time trees in a situation where limits on the period during which each host could have been infected are known. The sampling algorithm is available as an R package (STraTUS).
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 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".