Comparison of cluster-based and source-attribution methods for estimating transmission risk using large HIV sequence databases

We find that commonly used methods show a misleading association between cluster size or odds of clustering and covariates that are correlated with time since infection, regardless of their influence on transmission. Clustering methods usually have higher error rates and lower sensitivity than source attribution method for identifying transmission risk factors. But neither methods provide robust estimates of transmission risk ratios. Source attribution method can alleviate drawbacks from phylogenetic clustering but formal population genetic modeling may be required to estimate quantitative transmission risk factors.