Towards monitoring of antimicrobial resistance in the environment: For what reasons, how to implement it, and what are the data needs?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global threat to human and animal health and well-being. To understand AMR dynamics, it is important to monitor resistant bacteria and resistance genes in all relevant settings. However, while monitoring of AMR has been implemented in clinical and veterinary settings, comprehensive monitoring of AMR in the environment is almost completely lacking. Yet, the environmental dimension of AMR is critical for understanding the dissemination routes and selection of resistant microorganisms, as well as the human health risks related to environmental AMR. Here, we outline important knowledge gaps that impede implementation of environmental AMR monitoring. These include lack of knowledge of the 'normal' background levels of environmental AMR, definition of high-risk environments for transmission, and a poor understanding of the concentrations of antibiotics and other chemical agents that promote resistance selection. Furthermore, there is a lack of methods to detect resistance genes that are not already circulating among pathogens. We conclude that these knowledge gaps need to be addressed before routine monitoring for AMR in the environment can be implemented on a large scale. Yet, AMR monitoring data bridging different sectors is needed in order to fill these knowledge gaps, which means that some level of national, regional and global AMR surveillance in the environment must happen even without all scientific questions answered. With the possibilities opened up by rapidly advancing technologies, it is time to fill these knowledge gaps. Doing so will allow for specific actions against environmental AMR development and spread to pathogens and thereby safeguard the health and wellbeing of humans and animals.
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 | 0.075 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
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".