The utility of SARS-CoV-2 genomic data for informative clustering under different epidemiological scenarios and sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Clustering pathogen sequence data is a common practice in epidemiology to gain insights into the genetic diversity and evolutionary relationships among pathogens. We can find groups of cases with a shared transmission history and common origin, as well as identifying transmission hotspots. Motivated by the experience of clustering SARS-CoV-2 cases using whole genome sequence data during the COVID-19 pandemic to aid with public health investigation, we investigated how differences in epidemiology and sampling can influence the composition of clusters that are identified. METHODS: We performed genomic clustering on simulated SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks produced with different transmission rates and levels of genomic diversity, along with varying the proportion of cases sampled. RESULTS: In single outbreaks with a low transmission rate, decreasing the sampling fraction resulted in multiple, separate clusters being identified where intermediate cases in transmission chains are missed. Outbreaks simulated with a high transmission rate were more robust to changes in the sampling fraction and largely resulted in a single cluster that included all sampled outbreak cases. When considering multiple outbreaks in a sampled jurisdiction seeded by different introductions, low genomic diversity between introduced cases caused outbreaks to be merged into large clusters. If the transmission and sampling fraction, and diversity between introductions was low, a combination of the spurious break-up of outbreaks and the linking of closely related cases in different outbreaks resulted in clusters that may appear informative, but these did not reflect the true underlying population structure. Conversely, genomic clusters matched the true population structure when there was relatively high diversity between introductions and a high transmission rate. CONCLUSION: Differences in epidemiology and sampling can impact our ability to identify genomic clusters that describe the underlying population structure. These findings can help to guide recommendations for the use of pathogen clustering in public health investigations.
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 | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".