bayroot: Bayesian sampling of HIV-1 integration dates by root-to-tip regression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The composition of the latent human immunodeficiency virus 1 (HIV-1) reservoir is shaped by when proviruses integrated into host genomes. These integration dates can be estimated by phylogenetic methods like root-to-tip (RTT) regression. However, RTT does not accommodate variation in the number of mutations over time, uncertainty in estimating the molecular clock, or the position of the root in the tree. To address these limitations, we implemented a Bayesian extension of RTT as an R package (bayroot), which enables the user to incorporate prior information about the time of infection and start of antiretroviral therapy. Taking an unrooted maximum likelihood tree as input, we use a Metropolis–Hastings algorithm to sample from the joint posterior distribution of three parameters (the rate of sequence evolution, i.e., molecular clock; the location of the root; and the time associated with the root). Next, we apply rejection sampling to this posterior sample of model parameters to simulate integration dates for HIV proviral sequences. To validate this method, we use the R package treeswithintrees (twt) to simulate time-scaled trees relating samples of actively and latently infected T cells from a single host. We find that bayroot yields significantly more accurate estimates of integration dates than conventional RTT under a range of model settings.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it