An omics-based framework for assessing the health risk of antimicrobial resistance genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) are widespread among bacteria. However, not all ARGs pose serious threats to public health, highlighting the importance of identifying those that are high-risk. Here, we developed an 'omics-based' framework to evaluate ARG risk considering human-associated-enrichment, gene mobility, and host pathogenicity. Our framework classifies human-associated, mobile ARGs (3.6% of all ARGs) as the highest risk, which we further differentiate as 'current threats' (Rank I; 3%) - already present among pathogens - and 'future threats' (Rank II; 0.6%) - novel resistance emerging from non-pathogens. Our framework identified 73 'current threat' ARG families. Of these, 35 were among the 37 high-risk ARGs proposed by the World Health Organization and other literature; the remaining 38 were significantly enriched in hospital plasmids. By evaluating all pathogen genomes released since framework construction, we confirmed that ARGs that recently transferred into pathogens were significantly enriched in Rank II ('future threats'). Lastly, we applied the framework to gut microbiome genomes from fecal microbiota transplantation donors. We found that although ARGs were widespread (73% of genomes), only 8.9% of genomes contained high-risk ARGs. Our framework provides an easy-to-implement approach to identify current and future antimicrobial resistance threats, with potential clinical applications including reducing risk of microbiome-based interventions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".