Machine Learning for Antimicrobial Resistance Prediction: Current Practice, Limitations, and Clinical Perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health crisis that poses a great threat to modern medicine. Effective prevention strategies are urgently required to slow the emergence and further dissemination of AMR. Given the availability of data sets encompassing hundreds or thousands of pathogen genomes, machine learning (ML) is increasingly being used to predict resistance to different antibiotics in pathogens based on gene content and genome composition. A key objective of this work is to advocate for the incorporation of ML into front-line settings but also highlight the further refinements that are necessary to safely and confidently incorporate these methods. The question of what to predict is not trivial given the existence of different quantitative and qualitative laboratory measures of AMR. ML models typically treat genes as independent predictors, with no consideration of structural and functional linkages; they also may not be accurate when new mutational variants of known AMR genes emerge. Finally, to have the technology trusted by end users in public health settings, ML models need to be transparent and explainable to ensure that the basis for prediction is clear. We strongly advocate that the next set of AMR-ML studies should focus on the refinement of these limitations to be able to bridge the gap to diagnostic implementation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it