A stochastic analysis of the interplay between antibiotic dose, mode of action, and bacterial competition in the evolution of antibiotic resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of an antibiotic may lead to the emergence and spread of bacterial strains resistant to this antibiotic. Experimental and theoretical studies have investigated the drug dose that minimizes the risk of resistance evolution over the course of treatment of an individual, showing that the optimal dose will either be the highest or the lowest drug concentration possible to administer; however, no analytical results exist that help decide between these two extremes. To address this gap, we develop a stochastic mathematical model of bacterial dynamics under antibiotic treatment. We explore various scenarios of density regulation (bacterial density affects cell birth or death rates), and antibiotic modes of action (biostatic or biocidal). We derive analytical results for the survival probability of the resistant subpopulation until the end of treatment, the size of the resistant subpopulation at the end of treatment, the carriage time of the resistant subpopulation until it is replaced by a sensitive one after treatment, and we verify these results with stochastic simulations. We find that the scenario of density regulation and the drug mode of action are important determinants of the survival of a resistant subpopulation. Resistant cells survive best when bacterial competition reduces cell birth and under biocidal antibiotics. Compared to an analogous deterministic model, the population size reached by the resistant type is larger and carriage time is slightly reduced by stochastic loss of resistant cells. Moreover, we obtain an analytical prediction of the antibiotic concentration that maximizes the survival of resistant cells, which may help to decide which drug dosage (not) to administer. Our results are amenable to experimental tests and help link the within and between host scales in epidemiological models.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".