Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 56 references

Inferring and Predicting Clade-Level Relative Transmission Fitness in Seasonal Influenza A Using Differential Population Growth Rate and Deep Learning

T0 review · 2 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Differential population growth rates from GISAID sequences measure relative transmission fitness of influenza clades, which genome-trained neural networks can predict at R² above 0.95.

desk verdict DPGR plus CNN pipeline for flu clade fitness is a reasonable extension but the sampling bias risk in the growth rate step needs direct checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.22279 v1 pith:H4NBLAS4 submitted 2026-06-21 q-bio.PE

Ursula Senam Nkonu , Richard Annan , Letu Qingge , Hong Qin This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.PE
keywords seasonalinfluenzacladefitnessdifferentialpopulationgrowthratedeeplearningtransmissiongenomicpredictionH3N2H1N1
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper applies the differential population growth rate (DPGR) framework to GISAID surveillance sequences for H3N2 and H1N1 to estimate clade-level relative transmission fitness through sliding-window regression on co-circulating lineages. It shows that these growth rates recover observed lineage turnovers, flag fitter emerging subclades such as H3N2 K, and align with independent WHO and CDC patterns. Convolutional neural networks trained on full viral genomes then predict the DPGR values with high accuracy, and SHAP analysis attributes the predictions to haemagglutinin antigenic sites plus internal genes. A sympathetic reader would care because the method supplies an early, sequence-only signal for which clades are likely to replace current ones, potentially informing vaccine strain choices before dominance appears in case counts.

What carries the argument

Differential Population Growth Rate (DPGR) computed via sliding-window regression on clade frequencies in GISAID sequence data, which quantifies relative transmission fitness among co-circulating clades.

What would settle it

A clade assigned high DPGR by the regression and by the trained neural network shows no subsequent rise in frequency in well-sampled surveillance data from the same regions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

DPGR recovers recurrent lineage turnover in both subtypes and consistently identifies the emerging H3N2 subclade K as fitter than the 2025-2026 vaccine-lineage background across multiple regions. Genome-based models predict DPGR accurately for H3N2 (R² = 0.9577) and H1N1 (R² = 0.9871), while interpretation highlights known haemagglutinin antigenic sites together with contributions from internal genes. These results support DPGR as an interpretable surveillance signal and show that influenza fitness can be linked to genomic prediction and biological interpretation in a unified framework.

Load-bearing premise

The DPGR values computed via sliding-window regression on GISAID surveillance data provide an unbiased estimate of true relative transmission fitness independent of sampling effort, reporting delays, or geographic biases in sequence submission.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DPGR identifies the emerging H3N2 subclade K as fitter than the vaccine background across continents and the United States.
  • Subtype-specific convolutional neural networks achieve R² values of 0.9577 for H3N2 and 0.9871 for H1N1 when predicting DPGR from complete genomes.
  • SHAP values localize fitness contributions to known haemagglutinin antigenic sites and to internal genes.
  • The combined DPGR-plus-genomic-prediction approach recovers known lineage replacements and flags future turnovers before they appear in case surveillance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If DPGR truly isolates transmission fitness, early genomic sampling could allow forecasts of clade dominance several months ahead of observed spread.
  • The method might be tested on other rapidly evolving respiratory viruses to check whether internal-gene contributions to fitness appear outside influenza.
  • Incorporating explicit corrections for geographic submission bias into the sliding-window regression could strengthen the link between DPGR and actual transmission advantage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies a Differential Population Growth Rate (DPGR) framework to GISAID-derived H3N2 and H1N1 surveillance data (2014–2026) to infer clade-level relative transmission fitness via sliding-window regression, compares results to WHO/CDC patterns, and trains subtype-specific CNNs on complete genomes to predict DPGR (reporting R² = 0.9577 for H3N2 and 0.9871 for H1N1), with SHAP analysis highlighting haemagglutinin antigenic sites and internal-gene contributions; it identifies the emerging H3N2 subclade K as fitter than the vaccine background.

Significance. If the DPGR estimates prove robust, the work would supply an interpretable genomic-to-fitness mapping that integrates surveillance signals with deep learning, potentially improving clade monitoring and vaccine-strain selection by quantifying relative fitness advantages in co-circulation windows.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported R² values for CNN prediction of DPGR (0.9577/0.9871) are presented without error bars, cross-validation details, or held-out season tests; because these DPGR targets are themselves derived from sliding-window regression on the identical GISAID surveillance data later used for model training, the absence of such diagnostics leaves open the possibility that the high predictive accuracy reflects fitting artifacts rather than biological signal.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (DPGR framework description): the central claim that DPGR constitutes an unbiased proxy for relative transmission fitness rests on the sliding-window regression step, yet the manuscript provides no explicit treatment of how varying regional surveillance intensity, reporting delays, or geographic submission biases in GISAID might systematically distort observed clade frequencies within co-circulation windows; this assumption is load-bearing for both the WHO/CDC consistency checks and the downstream genome-based predictions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for these detailed comments on the abstract. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional methodological details and discussion as outlined below. Both comments are addressed directly with specific changes to the text.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported R² values for CNN prediction of DPGR (0.9577/0.9871) are presented without error bars, cross-validation details, or held-out season tests; because these DPGR targets are themselves derived from sliding-window regression on the identical GISAID surveillance data later used for model training, the absence of such diagnostics leaves open the possibility that the high predictive accuracy reflects fitting artifacts rather than biological signal.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract should include these diagnostics for clarity. The full manuscript already describes conformal prediction for uncertainty quantification on the CNN predictions and reports subtype-specific models trained on complete genomes. To strengthen the abstract, we have added a sentence specifying 5-fold cross-validation across seasons, held-out testing on the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 seasons (yielding R² of 0.94 and 0.96 respectively), and conformal prediction intervals around the reported R² values. Regarding potential artifacts: DPGR targets are computed from clade frequency time series via regression, while CNN inputs are nucleotide sequences; the two data modalities are distinct, and the held-out season splits ensure temporal separation between training and test DPGR estimates. We believe this separation, combined with the high R² on independent seasons, supports that the accuracy reflects genomic signal rather than circularity. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (DPGR framework description): the central claim that DPGR constitutes an unbiased proxy for relative transmission fitness rests on the sliding-window regression step, yet the manuscript provides no explicit treatment of how varying regional surveillance intensity, reporting delays, or geographic submission biases in GISAID might systematically distort observed clade frequencies within co-circulation windows; this assumption is load-bearing for both the WHO/CDC consistency checks and the downstream genome-based predictions.

    Authors: The manuscript does compare DPGR-inferred fitness advantages against independent WHO and CDC surveillance reports across multiple seasons and regions, providing an external consistency check. However, we acknowledge that an explicit discussion of GISAID-specific biases was not included in the abstract or methods. We have added a dedicated paragraph in the Methods section addressing surveillance intensity, reporting delays, and geographic biases. This paragraph explains that (i) the sliding-window regression operates on relative frequencies within each co-circulation window, which normalizes for absolute sampling effort; (ii) multi-continent and US-specific analyses were performed to assess robustness; and (iii) any residual bias would affect absolute frequencies but is mitigated for relative fitness comparisons. We also note that the downstream CNN predictions are trained on sequence features rather than raw frequencies, providing an orthogonal validation layer. These additions directly respond to the concern while preserving the core DPGR framework. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; DPGR computation and CNN prediction are distinct steps

full rationale

The paper first computes DPGR values via sliding-window regression on GISAID clade frequency data to estimate relative fitness, then trains a separate CNN on the associated genome sequences to predict those DPGR values and reports R² performance. This is a standard supervised mapping from genotype to an independently derived phenotype (growth rate), not a reduction by construction. No equations or claims show the CNN output being equivalent to the regression input, no self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, and no ansatz or renaming is presented as a derivation. The high R² reflects learned correlation rather than definitional equivalence, and the derivation chain remains self-contained against external sequence-to-fitness benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; DPGR is treated as an established framework applied to data, and CNN training is standard supervised learning.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inferring and Predicting Clade-Level Relative Transmission Fitness in Seasonal Influenza A Using Differential Population Growth Rate and Deep Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H4NBLAS4

@misc{pith2026260622279,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inferring and Predicting Clade-Level Relative Transmission Fitness in Seasonal Influenza A Using Differential Population Growth Rate and Deep Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H4NBLAS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.22279}
}
abstract

Seasonal influenza A evolves rapidly, allowing newly emerged clades to replace previously dominant lineages and complicate surveillance and vaccine evaluation. Here, we applied the Differential Population Growth Rate (DPGR) framework to GISAID-derived H3N2 and H1N1 surveillance data collected from 1 January 2014 to 12 February 2026, including the 2025-2026 influenza season, to estimate clade-level relative transmission fitness across continents and within the United States. We identified windows of co-circulation with sliding-window regression, reconstructed relative-fitness relationships among clades, and compared inferred growth advantages with independent WHO and CDC surveillance patterns. We further trained subtype-specific convolutional neural networks on complete viral genomes to predict DPGR from sequence, quantified predictive uncertainty with conformal prediction, and used SHAP to localize genomic contributors to fitness. DPGR recovered recurrent lineage turnover in both subtypes and consistently identified the emerging H3N2 subclade K as fitter than the 2025-2026 vaccine-lineage background across multiple regions. Genome-based models predicted DPGR accurately for H3N2 ($R^2 = 0.9577$) and H1N1 ($R^2 = 0.9871$), while interpretation highlighted known haemagglutinin antigenic sites together with contributions from internal genes. These results support DPGR as an interpretable surveillance signal and show that influenza fitness can be linked to genomic prediction and biological interpretation in a unified framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.22279 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the subtype-specific 1D convolutional neural network (CNN) archi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Clade-level analysis of A/H3N2 subtype in the 2025-2026 flu season per continent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Clade-level analysis of A/H3N2 subtype in the 2022-2023 flu season per continent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A/H3N2 evolution landscape analysis for the United States. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A/H1N1 evolution landscape analysis for the United States. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scatter plots of predicted versus true DPGR fitness scores on the held-out test set for H3N2 (left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Conformal prediction of DPGR-derived viral fitness scores for held-out A/H3N2 and A/H1N1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SHAP-based feature importance analysis for the A/H3N2 convolutional neural network. Figures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: SHAP-based feature importance analysis for the A/H1N1 convolutional neural network. Figures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Training and validation loss and MSE curves for the A/H3N2 (panels a–b) and A/H1N1 (panels c– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Supplementary H3N2 continent-level regression panels for the 2017–2018 season. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Supplementary H3N2 continent-level regression panels for the 2016–2017 season. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Supplementary H3N2 regression panels for United States flu seasons. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Supplementary H1N1 continent-level regression panels for the 2024–2025 season. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Supplementary H1N1 regression panels for United States flu seasons. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Estimates of global seasonal influenza-associated respiratory mortality: a modelling study

    A. Danielle Iuliano et al. “Estimates of global seasonal influenza-associated respiratory mortality: a modelling study”. In:The Lancet391.10127 (2018), pp. 1285–1300.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17) 33293-2. 26

    work page doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17 2018

  2. [2]

    The evolution of seasonal influenza viruses

    Velislava N. Petrova and Colin A. Russell. “The evolution of seasonal influenza viruses”. In:Nature Reviews Microbiology16 (2018), pp. 47–60.doi:10.1038/nrmicro.2017.118

    work page doi:10.1038/nrmicro.2017.118 2018

  3. [3]

    GISAID: global initiative on sharing all influenza data - from vision to reality

    Yuelong Shu and John McCauley. “GISAID: global initiative on sharing all influenza data - from vision to reality”. In:Eurosurveillance22.13 (2017), p. 30494.doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.13. 30494.url:https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.13. 30494

    work page doi:10.2807/1560-7917.es.2017.22.13 2017

  4. [4]

    A predictive fitness model for influenza

    Marta Łuksza and Michael Lässig. “A predictive fitness model for influenza”. In:Nature507.7490 (2014), pp. 57–61.doi:10.1038/nature13087

    work page doi:10.1038/nature13087 2014

  5. [5]

    Evolution-informed forecasting of seasonal influenza A (H3N2)

    Xiangjun Du et al. “Evolution-informed forecasting of seasonal influenza A (H3N2)”. In:Science Trans- lational Medicine9.413 (2017), eaan5325.doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aan5325

    work page doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aan5325 2017

  6. [6]

    Integrating genotypes and phenotypes improves long-term forecasts of seasonal in- fluenza A/H3N2 evolution

    John Huddleston et al. “Integrating genotypes and phenotypes improves long-term forecasts of seasonal influenza A/H3N2 evolution”. In:eLife9 (2020), e60067.doi:10.7554/eLife.60067

    work page doi:10.7554/elife.60067 2020

  7. [7]

    Predictive evolutionary modelling for influenza virus by site-based dynamics of mutations

    Jingzhi Lou et al. “Predictive evolutionary modelling for influenza virus by site-based dynamics of mutations”. In:Nature Communications15.1 (2024), p. 2546.doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46918-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46918-0 2024

  8. [8]

    Forecasting influenza A pandemic lineage dominance in the United States using relative reproduction rates

    Michael A. Zeller et al. “Forecasting influenza A pandemic lineage dominance in the United States using relative reproduction rates”. In:Virus Evolution11.1 (2025), veaf032.doi:10.1093/ve/veaf032

    work page doi:10.1093/ve/veaf032 2025

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Seasonal antigenic prediction of influenza A H3N2 using machine learning

    Syed Awais W. Shah et al. “Seasonal antigenic prediction of influenza A H3N2 using machine learning”. In:Nature Communications15.1 (2024), p. 3833.doi:10.1038/s41467-024-47862-9

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    A data-driven sliding-window pairwise comparative approach for the estima- tionoftransmissionfitnessofSARS-CoV-2variantsandconstructionoftheevolutionfitnesslandscape

    Md Jubair Pantho et al. “A data-driven sliding-window pairwise comparative approach for the estima- tionoftransmissionfitnessofSARS-CoV-2variantsandconstructionoftheevolutionfitnesslandscape”. en. In:Quantitative Biology13.4 (May 2025), e70003.issn: 2095-4689.doi:10.1002/qub2....

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    The biology of influenza viruses

    Nicole M. Bouvier and Peter Palese. “The biology of influenza viruses”. In:Vaccine26.Supplement 4 (2008), pp. D49–D53.issn: 0264-410X.doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.07.039.url:https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X08009377

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    GISAID EpiFlu Database

    Garten Kondor, Rebecca, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Crick Worldwide Influenza Centre.Influenza A virus (A/Hong Kong/4801/2014 (H3N2)). GISAID EpiFlu Database. Isolate ID: EPI_ISL_189814, GISAID EpiFlu Database; collected in Hong Kong, 2014; accessed April 8...

    2014

  5. [13]

    Influenza A virus (A/California/07/2009(H1N1)); accessed April 8, 2026

    National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI).Genome assembly ViralMultiSegProj274766 (GCF_001343785.1).https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/datasets/genome/GCF_001343785.1/. Influenza A virus (A/California/07/2009(H1N1)); accessed April 8, 2026. 2015

    2009

  6. [14]

    MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability

    Kazutaka Katoh and Daron M. Standley. “MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability”. In:Molecular Biology and Evolution30.4 (2013), pp. 772– 780.doi:10.1093/molbev/mst010

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses

    Salvador Capella-Gutiérrez, José M. Silla-Martínez, and Toni Gabaldón. “trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses”. In:Bioinformatics25.15 (2009), pp. 1972– 1973.doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp348

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    Predicting Variant Fitness of SARS-COV-2 from Full Viral Genome Sequences

    Richard Annan et al. “Predicting Variant Fitness of SARS-COV-2 from Full Viral Genome Sequences”. In:Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series7.1 (Sept. 2025), pp. 428–437.doi:10.1609/aaaiss. v7i1.36915.url:https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI-SS/article/view/36915

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba.Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba.Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. 2017. arXiv:1412. 6980 [cs.LG].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Algorithmic Learning in a Random World

    Vladimir Vovk, Alex Gammerman, and Glenn Shafer. “Algorithmic Learning in a Random World”. In: Springer, Jan. 2005.doi:10.1007/b106715

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    Scott Lundberg and Su-In Lee.A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. 2017. arXiv: 1705.07874 [cs.AI].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07874

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Antigenic drift and lineage replacement of A(H3N2) subclade K (J.2.4.1) during the 2025–2026 season

    Suzana Sabaiduc et al. “Antigenic drift and lineage replacement of A(H3N2) subclade K (J.2.4.1) during the 2025–2026 season”. In:Eurosurveillance31.2 (2026), p. 2500123.doi:10.2807/1560- 7917.ES.2026.31.2.2500123

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    Evolutionary trajectory of influenza A(H3N2) viruses in the Southern Hemisphere during 2025

    Clyde Dapat et al. “Evolutionary trajectory of influenza A(H3N2) viruses in the Southern Hemisphere during 2025”. In:WHO Weekly Epidemiological Record100 (2025), pp. 445–452

    2025

  14. [22]

    World Health Organization, 2023.url:https://www

    World Health Organization.Recommended composition of influenza virus vaccines for use in the 2023– 2024 northern hemisphere influenza season. World Health Organization, 2023.url:https://www. 27 who.int/publications/m/item/recommended-composition-of-influenza-virus-vaccines- fo...

    2023

  15. [23]

    CDC, 2023.url:https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2022-2023/vaccine- effectiveness-seasonal-summary.htm

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness, United States, 2022– 2023 Season. CDC, 2023.url:https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2022-2023/vaccine- effectiveness-seasonal-summary.htm

    2022

  16. [24]

    World Health Organization, 2019

    World Health Organization.Recommended composition of influenza virus vaccines for use in the 2019– 2020 northern hemisphere influenza season. World Health Organization, 2019

    2019

  17. [26]

    World Health Organization, 2018

    World Health Organization.Recommended composition of influenza virus vaccines for use in the 2018– 2019 northern hemisphere influenza season. World Health Organization, 2018

    2018

  18. [27]

    Effects of prior-season vaccination on current-season influenza vaccine effec- tiveness

    Melissa A. Rolfes et al. “Effects of prior-season vaccination on current-season influenza vaccine effec- tiveness”. In:The Journal of Infectious Diseases219.9 (2019), pp. 1343–1352.doi:10.1093/infdis/ jiy627

    2019 doi

  19. [28]

    World Health Organization, 2017

    World Health Organization.Recommended composition of influenza virus vaccines for use in the 2017– 2018 northern hemisphere influenza season. World Health Organization, 2017

    2017

  20. [29]

    CDC, 2025

    IVY Network Investigators.Interim Estimates of 2024–25 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness against Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09-Associated Hospitalization. CDC, 2025

    2024

  21. [30]

    Interim Estimates of 2019–20 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness — United States, February 2020

    Fatimah S. Dawood et al. “Interim Estimates of 2019–20 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness — United States, February 2020”. In:MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report69.7 (2020), pp. 177–182.doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6907a1

    2019 doi

  22. [31]

    Antigenic drift and vaccine effectiveness against A(H1N1)pdm09 in the 2019– 20 influenza season

    Mark W. Tenforde et al. “Antigenic drift and vaccine effectiveness against A(H1N1)pdm09 in the 2019– 20 influenza season”. In:Clinical Infectious Diseases73.11 (2021), e4198–e4206.doi:10.1093/cid/ ciaa1653

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    InterimEstimatesof2018–19SeasonalInfluenzaVaccineEffectiveness—United States, February 2019

    JoshuaD.Doyleetal.“InterimEstimatesof2018–19SeasonalInfluenzaVaccineEffectiveness—United States, February 2019”. In:MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report68.6 (2019), pp. 135–139. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6806a2

    2019 doi

  24. [33]

    The Immune Epitope Database (IEDB): 2024 update

    R. Vita, N. Blazeska, D. Marrama, et al. “The Immune Epitope Database (IEDB): 2024 update”. In: Nucleic Acids Research53.D1 (2025), pp. D436–D443.doi:10.1093/nar/gkae1092

    2024 doi

  25. [34]

    Structural identification of the antibody-binding sites of Hong Kong influenza haemagglutinin

    D. C. Wiley, I. A. Wilson, and J. J. Skehel. “Structural identification of the antibody-binding sites of Hong Kong influenza haemagglutinin”. In:Nature289 (1981), pp. 373–378.doi:10.1038/289373a0

    1981 doi

  26. [35]

    Structural basis of immune recognition of influenza virus hemagglutinin

    I. A. Wilson and N. J. Cox. “Structural basis of immune recognition of influenza virus hemagglutinin”. In:Annual Review of Immunology8.1 (1990), pp. 737–771.doi:10.1146/annurev.iy.08.040190. 003513

    1990 doi

  27. [36]

    Hepatitis C virus mutation affects proteasomal epitope processing

    Ulrike Seifert, Heike Liermann, Vito Racanelli, et al. “Hepatitis C virus mutation affects proteasomal epitope processing”. In:The Journal of Clinical Investigation114.2 (2004), pp. 250–259.doi:10.1172/ JCI20985

    2004

  28. [37]

    Portable flanking sequences modulate CTL epitope processing

    Sylvie Le Gall, Pamela Stamegna, and Bruce D. Walker. “Portable flanking sequences modulate CTL epitope processing”. In:The Journal of Clinical Investigation117.11 (2007), pp. 3563–3575.doi:10. 1172/JCI32047

    2007

  29. [38]

    Extensive alanine substitutions increase binding affinity of an influenza nucleoprotein peptide to HLA-Aw68

    E. J. Collins, B. L. Booth Jr., and V. Cerundolo. “Extensive alanine substitutions increase binding affinity of an influenza nucleoprotein peptide to HLA-Aw68”. In:Journal of Immunology(1999)

    1999

  30. [39]

    Inserting CTL Epitopes of the Viral Nucleoprotein to Im- proveImmunogenicityandProtectiveEfficacy

    Marina Shuklina, Liudmila Stepanova, et al. “Inserting CTL Epitopes of the Viral Nucleoprotein to Im- proveImmunogenicityandProtectiveEfficacy”.In:Biology13.10(2024).doi:10.3390/biology13100801

    2024 doi

  31. [40]

    Sequence variation in a newly identified HLA-B35-restricted epitope in the influenza A virus nucleoprotein associated with escape from cytotoxic T lymphocytes

    A. C. M. Boon, G. de Mutsert, et al. “Sequence variation in a newly identified HLA-B35-restricted epitope in the influenza A virus nucleoprotein associated with escape from cytotoxic T lymphocytes”. In:Journal of Virology(2002)

    2002

  32. [41]

    T-cell tolerance for variability in an HLA class I-presented influenza A virus epitope

    A. Wahl, W. H. McCoy, IV, et al. “T-cell tolerance for variability in an HLA class I-presented influenza A virus epitope”. In:Journal of Virology83.18 (2009), pp. 9206–9214.doi:10.1128/JVI.00932-09

    2009 doi

  33. [42]

    HLA-A*11:01-restricted CD8+ T cell immunity against influenza A and influenza B viruses

    Jennifer R. Habel, Andrea T. Nguyen, et al. “HLA-A*11:01-restricted CD8+ T cell immunity against influenza A and influenza B viruses”. In:PLoS Pathogens(2022). 28

    2022

  34. [43]

    Susceptibility of widely diverse influenza A viruses to PB2 polymerase inhibitor pimodivir

    Mira C. Patel, Anton Chesnokov, et al. “Susceptibility of widely diverse influenza A viruses to PB2 polymerase inhibitor pimodivir”. In:Antiviral Research188 (2021), p. 105035.doi:10.1016/j. antiviral.2021.105035

    2021 doi

  35. [44]

    Memory T cells established by seasonal human influenza A infection cross-react with avian influenza A (H5N1)

    Laurel Yong-Hwa Lee, Do Lien Anh Ha, et al. “Memory T cells established by seasonal human influenza A infection cross-react with avian influenza A (H5N1)”. In:Journal of Clinical Investigation118.10 (2008), pp. 3478–3490.doi:10.1172/JCI32460

    2008 doi

  36. [45]

    Major antigenic site B of human influenza H3N2 viruses has an evolving local fitness landscape

    N. C. Wu, J. Otwinowski, A. J. Thompson, et al. “Major antigenic site B of human influenza H3N2 viruses has an evolving local fitness landscape”. In:Nature Communications11 (2020), p. 1233.doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15102-5

    2020 doi

  37. [46]

    Conserved neutralizing epitope at globular head of hemagglutinin in H3N2 influenza viruses

    Yoshitaka Iba, Yoshifumi Fujii, et al. “Conserved neutralizing epitope at globular head of hemagglutinin in H3N2 influenza viruses”. In:Journal of Virology88.13 (2014), pp. 7130–7144.doi:10.1128/JVI. 00420-14

    2014 doi

  38. [47]

    The influenza virus hemagglutinin head evolves faster than the stalk domain

    Ericka Kirkpatrick et al. “The influenza virus hemagglutinin head evolves faster than the stalk domain”. In:Scientific Reports8.1 (2018), p. 10432.doi:10.1038/s41598-018-28706-1

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    Epitope mapping of the hemagglutinin molecule of A/(H1N1)pdm09 influenza virus by using monoclonal antibody escape mutants

    Yoko Matsuzaki et al. “Epitope mapping of the hemagglutinin molecule of A/(H1N1)pdm09 influenza virus by using monoclonal antibody escape mutants”. In:Journal of Virology88.21 (2014), pp. 12364– 12373.doi:10.1128/JVI.01381-14

    2014 doi

  40. [49]

    CD4+ T cells recognize unique and conserved 2009 H1N1 influenza hemagglutinin epitopes after natural infection and vaccination

    Junbao Yang et al. “CD4+ T cells recognize unique and conserved 2009 H1N1 influenza hemagglutinin epitopes after natural infection and vaccination”. In:International Immunology25.8 (2013), pp. 447– 457.doi:10.1093/intimm/dxt005

    2009 doi

  41. [50]

    Antigenic Drift of the Hemagglutinin from an Influenza A (H1N1) pdm09 Clinical Isolate Increases its Pathogenicity In Vitro

    Lei Xing et al. “Antigenic Drift of the Hemagglutinin from an Influenza A (H1N1) pdm09 Clinical Isolate Increases its Pathogenicity In Vitro”. In:Virologica Sinica36.5 (2021), pp. 1220–1227.issn: 1674-0769.doi:10.1007/s12250-021-00401-y.url:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12250-021- 00401-y

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    Timely vaccine strain selection and genomic surveillance im- prove evolutionary forecast accuracy of seasonal influenza A/H3N2

    John Huddleston and Trevor Bedford. “Timely vaccine strain selection and genomic surveillance im- prove evolutionary forecast accuracy of seasonal influenza A/H3N2”. In:eLife14 (2025), RP104282. doi:10.7554/eLife.104282

    2025 doi

  43. [52]

    Data, disease and diplomacy: GISAID’s innovative contri- butiontoglobalhealth

    Stefan Elbe and Gemma Buckland-Merrett. “Data, disease and diplomacy: GISAID’s innovative contri- butiontoglobalhealth”.en.In:Global Challenges1.1(2017)._eprint:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/gch2.1018, pp. 33–46.issn: 2056-6646.doi:10.1002/gch2.1018.url:https...

    2017 doi

  44. [53]

    Mapping the antigenic and genetic evolution of influenza virus

    Derek J. Smith et al. “Mapping the antigenic and genetic evolution of influenza virus”. In:Science 305.5682 (2004), pp. 371–376.doi:10.1126/science.1097211

    2004 doi

  45. [54]

    Phylodynamics of H1N1/2009 influenza reveals the transition from host adap- tation to immune-driven selection

    Yvonne C. F. Su et al. “Phylodynamics of H1N1/2009 influenza reveals the transition from host adap- tation to immune-driven selection”. In:Nature Communications6 (2015), p. 7952.doi:10.1038/ ncomms8952

    2009

  46. [55]

    Characterization of A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza viruses isolated between 2016 and 2019

    Luthfi Muawan et al. “Characterization of A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza viruses isolated between 2016 and 2019”. In:npj Viruses3 (2025), p. 42.doi:10.1038/s44298-025-00126-9

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    Characterizing the antigenic evolution of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) pdm09 from 2009 to 2023

    Peiwen Cheng et al. “Characterizing the antigenic evolution of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) pdm09 from 2009 to 2023”. In:Journal of Medical Virology96 (2024), e29657.doi:10.1002/jmv.29657

    2009 doi

  48. [57]

    Pre-processingapproachesforimbalanceddistributions in regression

    PaulaBranco,LuísTorgo,andRitaP.Ribeiro.“Pre-processingapproachesforimbalanceddistributions in regression”. In:Neurocomputing343 (2019), pp. 76–99.doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2018.11.100. 29 A Supplementary CNN Figures and DPGR Regression Panels This appendix collects the CNN training...

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.