Comparison of phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing results and WGS-derived genotypic resistance profiles for a cohort of ESBL-producing <i>Escherichia coli</i> collected from Canadian hospitals: CANWARD 2007–18
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the genotypic resistance profile inferred from WGS could accurately predict phenotypic resistance for ESBL-producing Escherichia coli isolated from patient samples in Canadian hospital laboratories. METHODS: As part of the ongoing CANWARD study, 671 E. coli were collected and phenotypically confirmed as ESBL producers using CLSI M100 disc testing criteria. Isolates were sequenced using the Illumina MiSeq platform, resulting in 636 high-quality genomes for comparison. Using a rules-based approach, the genotypic resistance profile was compared with the phenotypic resistance interpretation generated using the CLSI broth microdilution method for ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. RESULTS: The most common genes associated with non-susceptibility to ceftriaxone, gentamicin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole were CTX-M-15 (n = 391), aac(3)-IIa + aac(6')-Ib-cr (n = 121) and dfrA17 + sul1 (n = 169), respectively. Ciprofloxacin non-susceptibility was most commonly attributed to alterations in both gyrA (S83L + D87N) and parC (S80I + E84V), with (n = 187) or without (n = 197) aac(6')-Ib-cr. Categorical agreement (susceptible or non-susceptible) between actual and predicted phenotype was 95.6%, 98.9%, 97.6% and 88.8% for ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, respectively. Only ciprofloxacin results (susceptible or non-susceptible) were predicted with major error (ME) and very major error (VME) rates of <3%: ciprofloxacin (ME, 1.5%; VME, 1.1%); gentamicin (ME, 0.8%-31.7%; VME, 4.8%); ceftriaxone (ME, 81.8%; VME, 3.0%); and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (ME, 0.9%-23.0%; VME, 5.2%-8.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Our rules-based approach for predicting a resistance phenotype from WGS performed well for ciprofloxacin, with categorical agreement of 98.9%, an ME rate of 1.5% and a VME rate of 1.1%. Although high categorical agreements were also obtained for gentamicin, ceftriaxone and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, ME and/or VME rates were ≥3%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".