Closed trvrb closed 1 year ago
With the rise of XBB viruses there are a large number of "recombinant" clades that no longer mean the same thing they used to. I think clearer and less noisy to just always collapse "recombinant" into the "other" category.
Is there any reason we would want to support analysis of old dates with "recombinant" as an output variant? If so, we could use --force-include-clades recombinant=other
to force the collapse without hard-coding it into the script.
Ran model with clade counts produced by the test run and uploaded to s3://nextstrain-data/files/workflows/forecasts-ncov/trial/collapse-recombinants/gisaid/nextstrain_clades/global/mlr/2023-10-31_results.json
Comparing current results from 2023-10-30 with the trial results :
Description of proposed changes
With the rise of XBB viruses there are a large number of "recombinant" clades that no longer mean the same thing they used to. I think clearer and less noisy to just always collapse "recombinant" into the "other" category.
@joverlee521: I wasn't sure if you thought this needed more of a warning to users. I was basically trying to mirror how
NA
is replaced withother
.Testing
Testing locally gives expected results:
Though looks like I need to fix tests. I'll look into this.