SplitStrains, a tool to identify and separate mixed <i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i> infections from WGS data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The occurrence of multiple strains of a bacterial pathogen such as M. tuberculosis or C. difficile within a single human host, referred to as a mixed infection, has important implications for both healthcare and public health. However, methods for detecting it, and especially determining the proportion and identities of the underlying strains, from WGS (whole-genome sequencing) data, have been limited. In this paper we introduce SplitStrains , a novel method for addressing these challenges. Grounded in a rigorous statistical model, SplitStrains not only demonstrates superior performance in proportion estimation to other existing methods on both simulated as well as real M. tuberculosis data, but also successfully determines the identity of the underlying strains. We conclude that SplitStrains is a powerful addition to the existing toolkit of analytical methods for data coming from bacterial pathogens, and holds the promise of enabling previously inaccessible conclusions to be drawn in the realm of public health microbiology. Author summary When multiple strains of a pathogenic organism are present in a patient, it may be necessary to not only detect this, but also to identify the individual strains. However, this problem has not yet been solved for bacterial pathogens processed via whole-genome sequencing. In this paper, we propose the SplitStrains algorithm for detecting multiple strains in a sample, identifying their proportions, and inferring their sequences, in the case of Mycobacterium tuberculosis . We test it on both simulated and real data, with encouraging results. We believe that our work opens new horizons in public health microbiology by allowing a more precise detection, identification and quantification of multiple infecting strains within a sample.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".