Comparing the transmission potential from sequence and surveillance data of 2009 North American influenza pandemic waves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technological advancements in phylodynamic modeling coupled with the accessibility of real-time pathogen genetic data are increasingly important for understanding the infectious disease transmission dynamics. In this study, we compare the transmission potentials of North American influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 derived from sequence data to that derived from surveillance data. The impact of the choice of tree-priors, informative epidemiological priors, and evolutionary parameters on the transmission potential estimation is evaluated. North American Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 hemagglutinin (HA) gene sequences are analyzed using the coalescent and birth-death tree prior models to estimate the basic reproduction number (R0). Epidemiological priors gathered from published literature are used to simulate the birth-death skyline models. Path-sampling marginal likelihood estimation is conducted to assess model fit. A bibliographic search to gather surveillance-based R0 values were consistently lower (mean ≤ 1.2) when estimated by coalescent models than by the birth-death models with informative priors on the duration of infectiousness (mean ≥ 1.3 to ≤2.88 days). The user-defined informative priors for use in the birth-death model shift the directionality of epidemiological and evolutionary parameters compared to non-informative estimates. While there was no certain impact of clock rate and tree height on the R0 estimation, an opposite relationship was observed between coalescent and birth-death tree priors. There was no significant difference (p = 0.46) between the birth-death model and surveillance R0 estimates. This study concludes that tree-prior methodological differences may have a substantial impact on the transmission potential estimation as well as the evolutionary parameters. The study also reports a consensus between the sequence-based R0 estimation and surveillance-based R0 estimates. Altogether, these outcomes shed light on the potential role of phylodynamic modeling to augment existing surveillance and epidemiological activities to better assess and respond to emerging infectious diseases.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".