Phylogenetic inference of pneumococcal transmission from cross-sectional data, a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Inference on pneumococcal transmission has mostly relied on longitudinal studies which are costly and resource intensive. Therefore, we conducted a pilot study to test the ability to infer who infected whom from cross-sectional pneumococcal sequences using phylogenetic inference. Methods: Five suspected transmission pairs, for which there was epidemiological evidence of who infected whom, were selected from a household study. For each pair, Streptococcus pneumoniae full genomes were sequenced from nasopharyngeal swabs collected on the same day. The within-host genetic diversity of the pneumococcal population was used to infer the transmission direction and then cross-validated with the direction suggested by the epidemiological records. Results: The pneumococcal genomes clustered into the five households from which the samples were taken. The proportion of concordantly inferred transmission direction generally increased with increasing minimum genome fragment size and single nucleotide polymorphisms. We observed a larger proportion of unique polymorphic sites in the source bacterial population compared to that of the recipient in four of the five pairs, as expected in the case of a transmission bottleneck. The only pair that did not exhibit this effect was also the pair that had consistent discordant transmission direction compared to the epidemiological records suggesting potential misdirection as a result of false-negative sampling. Conclusions: This pilot provided support for further studies to test if the direction of pneumococcal transmission can be reliably inferred from cross-sectional samples if sequenced with sufficient depth and fragment length.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".