Clinical Metagenomics Is Increasingly Accurate and Affordable to Detect Enteric Bacterial Pathogens in Stool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stool culture is the gold standard method to diagnose enteric bacterial infections; however, many clinical laboratories are transitioning to syndromic multiplex PCR panels. PCR is rapid, accurate, and affordable, yet does not yield subtyping information critical for foodborne disease surveillance. A metagenomics-based stool testing approach could simultaneously provide diagnostic and public health information. Here, we evaluated shotgun metagenomics to assess the detection of common enteric bacterial pathogens in stool. We sequenced 304 stool specimens from 285 patients alongside routine diagnostic testing for Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., Shigella spp., and shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli. Five analytical approaches were assessed for pathogen detection: microbiome profiling, Kraken2, MetaPhlAn, SRST2, and KAT-SECT. Among analysis tools and databases compared, KAT-SECT analysis provided the best sensitivity and specificity for all pathogens tested compared to culture (91.2% and 96.2%, respectively). Where metagenomics detected a pathogen in culture-negative specimens, standard PCR was positive 85% of the time. The cost of metagenomics is approaching the current combined cost of PCR, reflex culture, and whole genome sequencing for pathogen detection and subtyping. As cost, speed, and analytics for single-approach metagenomics improve, it may be more routinely applied in clinical and public health laboratories.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".