WGS to predict antibiotic MICs for Neisseria gonorrhoeae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Tracking the spread of antimicrobial-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae is a major priority for national surveillance programmes. Objectives: We investigate whether WGS and simultaneous analysis of multiple resistance determinants can be used to predict antimicrobial susceptibilities to the level of MICs in N. gonorrhoeae. Methods: WGS was used to identify previously reported potential resistance determinants in 681 N. gonorrhoeae isolates, from England, the USA and Canada, with phenotypes for cefixime, penicillin, azithromycin, ciprofloxacin and tetracycline determined as part of national surveillance programmes. Multivariate linear regression models were used to identify genetic predictors of MIC. Model performance was assessed using leave-one-out cross-validation. Results: Overall 1785/3380 (53%) MIC values were predicted to the nearest doubling dilution and 3147 (93%) within ±1 doubling dilution and 3314 (98%) within ±2 doubling dilutions. MIC prediction performance was similar across the five antimicrobials tested. Prediction models included the majority of previously reported resistance determinants. Applying EUCAST breakpoints to MIC predictions, the overall very major error (VME; phenotypically resistant, WGS-prediction susceptible) rate was 21/1577 (1.3%, 95% CI 0.8%-2.0%) and the major error (ME; phenotypically susceptible, WGS-prediction resistant) rate was 20/1186 (1.7%, 1.0%-2.6%). VME rates met regulatory thresholds for all antimicrobials except cefixime and ME rates for all antimicrobials except tetracycline. Country of testing was a strongly significant predictor of MIC for all five antimicrobials. Conclusions: We demonstrate a WGS-based MIC prediction approach that allows reliable MIC prediction for five gonorrhoea antimicrobials. Our approach should allow reasonably precise prediction of MICs for a range of bacterial species.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".