Epidemiological cluster identification using multiple data sources: an approach using logistic regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the management of infectious disease outbreaks, grouping cases into clusters and understanding their underlying epidemiology are fundamental tasks. In genomic epidemiology, clusters are typically identified either using pathogen sequences alone or with sequences in combination with epidemiological data such as location and time of collection. However, it may not be feasible to culture and sequence all pathogen isolates, so sequence data may not be available for all cases. This presents challenges for identifying clusters and understanding epidemiology, because these cases may be important for transmission. Demographic, clinical and location data are likely to be available for unsequenced cases, and comprise partial information about their clustering. Here, we use statistical modelling to assign unsequenced cases to clusters already identified by genomic methods, assuming that a more direct method of linking individuals, such as contact tracing, is not available. We build our model on pairwise similarity between cases to predict whether cases cluster together, in contrast to using individual case data to predict the cases' clusters. We then develop methods that allow us to determine whether a pair of unsequenced cases are likely to cluster together, to group them into their most probable clusters, to identify which are most likely to be members of a specific (known) cluster, and to estimate the true size of a known cluster given a set of unsequenced cases. We apply our method to tuberculosis data from Valencia, Spain. Among other applications, we find that clustering can be predicted successfully using spatial distance between cases and whether nationality is the same. We can identify the correct cluster for an unsequenced case, among 38 possible clusters, with an accuracy of approximately 35 %, higher than both direct multinomial regression (17 %) and random selection (< 5 %).
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 | 0.055 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".