Comparing <i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i> transmission reconstruction models from whole genome sequence data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genomic epidemiology is routinely used worldwide to interrogate infectious disease dynamics. Multiple computational tools exist that reconstruct transmission networks by coupling genomic data with epidemiological models. Resulting inferences can improve our understanding of pathogen transmission dynamics, and yet the performance of these tools has not been evaluated for tuberculosis (TB), a disease process with complex epidemiology including variable latency and within-host heterogeneity. Here, we performed a systematic comparison of six publicly available transmission reconstruction models, evaluating their accuracy when predicting transmission events in simulated and real-world Mycobacterium tuberculosis outbreaks. We observed variability in the number of transmission links that were predicted with high probability ( P ≥ 0.5) and low accuracy of these predictions against known transmission in simulated outbreaks. We also found a low proportion of epidemiologically supported case–contact pairs were identified in our real-world TB clusters. The specificity of all models was high, and a relatively high proportion of the total transmission events predicted by some models were true links, notably with TransPhylo, Outbreaker2, and Phybreak. Our findings may inform the choice of tools in TB transmission analyses and underscore the need for caution when interpreting transmission networks produced using probabilistic approaches.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".