Ct values can be used to estimate epidemic dynamics UPDATE! Ct values are expected to change depending on whether the epidemic is growing or declining, and we harness this to estimate the epidemic trajectory. Lots of cool new analyses and methods!

Highlights:
- Cts from symptom-based surveillance change over time, but the effect is weaker
- Methods to infer incidence using single cross-sections of Cts
- Unbiased by changing testing coverage
- Gaussian process (wiggly line) model for incidence tracking using Ct values
2/12
This work is *JOINTLY led* with @LeekShaffer and PI’d by @michaelmina_lab. Thank you also to the ever insightful @mlipsitch and to coauthors @SanjatKanjilal @gabriel_stacey and @nialljlennon. 3/12
Premise: times since infection depend on the epidemic trajectory. Distributions of randomly sampled viral loads proxy times since infection. With calibration, Ct values can estimate growth rate. We focus on qPCR in SARS-CoV-2, but the principle applies to any outbreak. 4/12
Result 1: viral loads are shifted higher (Cts lower) during epidemic growth and lower (Cts higher) during decline when individuals are sampled *based on the onset of symptoms*. We simulated linelist data under symptom-based surveillance and looked at TSI and Cts over time. 5/12
This is crucial when considering virulence in emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. Lower Cts over time do not *necessarily* mean newly dominant variants have higher virulence. If incidence of a new variant is increasing, then we expect to see more recent infections and lower Cts. 6/12
**However, the effect is smaller than under random surveillance, so I would not rule out the possibility of increased virulence.** But important to consider. Thank you to @charliewhittak for chatting through this! 7/12
Result 2: we reconstructed the epidemic curve using single-cross sectional samples from well-observed nursing homes, finding that single cross sections using the full Ct distribution provided similar insights to point prevalence across three sample times. 8/12
Result 3: we compared Ct-based to case-count based methods when testing is changing. Rt estimates are biased when testing is increasing or decreasing (not a problem with the method, just the data!). Our method uses the Ct distribution so does not care about test numbers. 9/12
Result 4: we use multiple cross-sectional samples to reconstruct incidence without making assumptions about the trajectory shape (a Gaussian “wiggly” process model). We can track the incidence curve in MA using routinely collected hospital tests. 10/12
… and here is a gif that reminds me of a nematode worm. Every week we add on a new cross section of Cts and accurately track true incidence (in simulation, red line). 11/12
Conclusion: we are generating loads of (semi) quantitative data in the form of Cts. We can harness these to get unbiased estimates of the epidemic trajectory. Hopefully these ideas will help public health surveillance efforts and interpret data in the light of new variants. 12/12

More from Science

It was great to talk about reproducible workflows for @riotscienceclub @riotscience_wlv. You can watch the recording below, but if you don't want to listen to me talk for 40 minutes, I thought I would summarise my talk in a thread:


My inspiration was making open science accessible. I wanted to outline the mistakes I've made along the way so people would feel empowered to give it a go. Increased accountability is seen as a barrier to adopting open science practices as an ECR

It also comes across as all or nothing. You are either fully open science or your research won't get anywhere. However, that can be quite intimidating, so I wanted to emphasise this incremental approach to adapting your workflow

There are two sides to why you should work towards reproducibility. The first is communal. It's going to help the field if you or someone else can reproduce your whole pipeline.


There is also the selfish element of it's just going to help you do your work. If you can't remember what your work means after a lunch break, you're not going to remember months or years down the line

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
THREAD: 12 Things Everyone Should Know About IQ

1. IQ is one of the most heritable psychological traits – that is, individual differences in IQ are strongly associated with individual differences in genes (at least in fairly typical modern environments). https://t.co/3XxzW9bxLE


2. The heritability of IQ *increases* from childhood to adulthood. Meanwhile, the effect of the shared environment largely fades away. In other words, when it comes to IQ, nature becomes more important as we get older, nurture less.
https://t.co/UqtS1lpw3n


3. IQ scores have been increasing for the last century or so, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect. https://t.co/sCZvCst3hw (N ≈ 4 million)

(Note that the Flynn effect shows that IQ isn't 100% genetic; it doesn't show that it's 100% environmental.)


4. IQ predicts many important real world outcomes.

For example, though far from perfect, IQ is the single-best predictor of job performance we have – much better than Emotional Intelligence, the Big Five, Grit, etc. https://t.co/rKUgKDAAVx https://t.co/DWbVI8QSU3


5. Higher IQ is associated with a lower risk of death from most causes, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, most forms of cancer, homicide, suicide, and accident. https://t.co/PJjGNyeQRA (N = 728,160)