<scp>HRMAn</scp> 2.0: Next‐generation artificial intelligence–driven analysis for broad host–pathogen interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study the dynamics of infection processes, it is common to manually enumerate imaging-based infection assays. However, manual counting of events from imaging data is biased, error-prone and a laborious task. We recently presented HRMAn (Host Response to Microbe Analysis), an automated image analysis program using state-of-the-art machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms to analyse pathogen growth and host defence behaviour. With HRMAn, we can quantify intracellular infection by pathogens such as Toxoplasma gondii and Salmonella in a variety of cell types in an unbiased and highly reproducible manner, measuring multiple parameters including pathogen growth, pathogen killing and activation of host cell defences. Since HRMAn is based on the KNIME Analytics platform, it can easily be adapted to work with other pathogens and produce more readouts from quantitative imaging data. Here we showcase improvements to HRMAn resulting in the release of HRMAn 2.0 and new applications of HRMAn 2.0 for the analysis of host-pathogen interactions using the established pathogen T. gondii and further extend it for use with the bacterial pathogen Chlamydia trachomatis and the fungal pathogen Cryptococcus neoformans.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.025 |
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".