Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Epidemics. 2017 Oct 20;23:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.epidem.2017.10.001

Table 2.

Percentage of error of source attribution (SA) and clustering methods at detecting heterogeneous transmission rates

Type of error a SA Clustering
Analysis 0.5% 1.5% 5.0%
Risk level b
 Unadjusted II 5 11 83 98
 Adjusted for stage of infection II 48 84 86 81
Stage of infection c
 Equal-rate scenario I 17 100 100 100
 Baseline scenario II 19 0 0 0
Age category d
 Unadjusted I 8 75 86 63
 Adjusted for stage of infection I 0 18 25 93
a

Type I error corresponds here to falsely associating a variable to an increased transmission (false positive) and type II error corresponds to not detecting a true difference in transmission (false negative). Values reported are % of simulations leading to an erroneous outcome.

b

Individuals allocated in high-risk category had a ten-fold increase in transmission rate. This allocation was completely random and had no dependance on stage of infection or other clinical variables. Values correspond to the analysis of transmission rate ratio (see section 3.2 in the main text).

c

In the equal-rate scenario, transmission was independent of infection stage. In the baseline scenario, transmission rates was increased ten-fold in early HIV infection and three-fold in AIDS stage.

d

There was no association between age category and transmission rates.