Application of artificial intelligence to the in silico assessment of antimicrobial resistance and risks to human and animal health presented by priority enteric bacterial pathogens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each year, approximately one in eight Canadians are affected by foodborne illness, either through outbreaks or sporadic illness, with animals being the major reservoir for the pathogens.Whole genome sequence analyses are now routinely implemented by public and animal health laboratories to define epidemiological disease clusters and to identify potential sources of infection.Similarly, a number of bioinformatics tools can be used to identify virulence and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) determinants in the genomes of pathogenic strains.Many important clinical and phenotypic characteristics of these pathogens can now be predicted using machine learning algorithms applied to whole genome sequence data.In this overview, we compare the ability of support vector machines, gradient-boosted decision trees and artificial neural networks to predict the levels of AMR within Salmonella enterica and extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL) producing Escherichia coli.We show that minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) for each of 13 antimicrobials for S. enterica strains can be accurately determined, and that ESBL-producing E. coli strains can be accurately classified as susceptible, intermediate or resistant for each of seven antimicrobials.In addition to AMR and bacterial populations of greatest risk to human health, artificial intelligence algorithms hold promise as tools to predict other clinically and epidemiologically important phenotypes of enteric pathogens.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".