MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310433486 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010745

Optimized phylogenetic clustering of HIV-1 sequence data for public health applications

2022· article· en· W4310433486 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Connor Chato, Yi Feng, Yuhua Ruan, Hui Xing, Joshua T. Herbeck, Marcia L. Kalish, Art F. Y. Poon

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCenter for AIDS Research, University of Washington
KeywordsStatisticsCovariatePoisson distributionPhylogenetic treeCluster analysisNull modelBiologyPopulationRange (aeronautics)Poisson regressionMathematicsDemographyEcologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clusters of genetically similar infections suggest rapid transmission and may indicate priorities for public health action or reveal underlying epidemiological processes. However, clusters often require user-defined thresholds and are sensitive to non-epidemiological factors, such as non-random sampling. Consequently the ideal threshold for public health applications varies substantially across settings. Here, we show a method which selects optimal thresholds for phylogenetic (subset tree) clustering based on population. We evaluated this method on HIV-1 pol datasets (n = 14, 221 sequences) from four sites in USA (Tennessee, Washington), Canada (Northern Alberta) and China (Beijing). Clusters were defined by tips descending from an ancestral node (with a minimum bootstrap support of 95%) through a series of branches, each with a length below a given threshold. Next, we used pplacer to graft new cases to the fixed tree by maximum likelihood. We evaluated the effect of varying branch-length thresholds on cluster growth as a count outcome by fitting two Poisson regression models: a null model that predicts growth from cluster size, and an alternative model that includes mean collection date as an additional covariate. The alternative model was favoured by AIC across most thresholds, with optimal (greatest difference in AIC) thresholds ranging 0.007-0.013 across sites. The range of optimal thresholds was more variable when re-sampling 80% of the data by location (IQR 0.008 - 0.016, n = 100 replicates). Our results use prospective phylogenetic cluster growth and suggest that there is more variation in effective thresholds for public health than those typically used in clustering studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207