A proposed analytic framework for determining the impact of an antimicrobial resistance intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial use (AMU) is increasingly threatened by antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The FDA is implementing risk mitigation measures promoting prudent AMU in food animals. Their evaluation is crucial: the AMU/AMR relationship is complex; a suitable framework to analyze interventions is unavailable. Systems science analysis, depicting variables and their associations, would help integrate mathematics/epidemiology to evaluate the relationship. This would identify informative data and models to evaluate interventions. This National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis AMR Working Group's report proposes a system framework to address the methodological gap linking livestock AMU and AMR in foodborne bacteria. It could evaluate how AMU (and interventions) impact AMR. We will evaluate pharmacokinetic/dynamic modeling techniques for projecting AMR selection pressure on enteric bacteria. We study two methods to model phenotypic AMR changes in bacteria in the food supply and evolutionary genotypic analyses determining molecular changes in phenotypic AMR. Systems science analysis integrates the methods, showing how resistance in the food supply is explained by AMU and concurrent factors influencing the whole system. This process is updated with data and techniques to improve prediction and inform improvements for AMU/AMR surveillance. Our proposed framework reflects both the AMR system's complexity, and desire for simple, reliable conclusions.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".