A roadmap for the generation of benchmarking resources for antimicrobial resistance detection using next generation sequencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Next Generation Sequencing technologies significantly impact the field of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) detection and monitoring, with immediate uses in diagnosis and risk assessment. For this application and in general, considerable challenges remain in demonstrating sufficient trust to act upon the meaningful information produced from raw data, partly because of the reliance on bioinformatics pipelines, which can produce different results and therefore lead to different interpretations. With the constant evolution of the field, it is difficult to identify, harmonise and recommend specific methods for large-scale implementations over time. In this article, we propose to address this challenge through establishing a transparent, performance-based, evaluation approach to provide flexibility in the bioinformatics tools of choice, while demonstrating proficiency in meeting common performance standards. The approach is two-fold: first, a community-driven effort to establish and maintain "live" (dynamic) benchmarking platforms to provide relevant performance metrics, based on different use-cases, that would evolve together with the AMR field; second, agreed and defined datasets to allow the pipelines' implementation, validation, and quality-control over time. Following previous discussions on the main challenges linked to this approach, we provide concrete recommendations and future steps, related to different aspects of the design of benchmarks, such as the selection and the characteristics of the datasets (quality, choice of pathogens and resistances, etc.), the evaluation criteria of the pipelines, and the way these resources should be deployed in the community.
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 | 0.174 | 0.184 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
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".