Is scientific evidence enough? Using expert opinion to fill gaps in data in antimicrobial resistance research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is a global problem with large health and economic consequences. Current gaps in quantitative data are a major limitation for creating models intended to simulate the drivers of AMR. As an intermediate step, expert knowledge and opinion could be utilized to fill gaps in knowledge for areas of the system where quantitative data does not yet exist or are hard to quantify. Therefore, the objective of this study was to identify quantifiable data about the current state of the factors that drive AMR and the strengths and directions of relationships between the factors from statements made by a group of experts from the One Health system that drives AMR development and transmission in a European context. METHODS: This study builds upon previous work that developed a causal loop diagram of AMR using input from two workshops conducted in 2019 in Sweden with experts within the European food system context. A secondary analysis of the workshop transcripts was conducted to identify semi-quantitative data to parameterize drivers in a model of AMR. MAIN FINDINGS: Participants spoke about AMR by combining their personal experiences with professional expertise within their fields. The analysis of participants' statements provided semi-quantitative data that can help inform a future of AMR emergence and transmission based on a causal loop diagram of AMR in a Swedish One Health system context. CONCLUSION: Using transcripts of a workshop including participants with diverse expertise across the system that drives AMR, we gained invaluable insight into the past, current, and potential future states of the major drivers of AMR, particularly where quantitative data are lacking.
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 | 0.596 | 0.777 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".