Genomics for public health and international surveillance of antimicrobial resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, epidemiological investigation and surveillance for bacterial antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has relied on low-resolution isolate-based phenotypic analyses undertaken at local and national reference laboratories. Genomic sequencing has the potential to provide a far more high-resolution picture of AMR evolution and transmission, and is already beginning to revolutionise how public health surveillance networks monitor and tackle bacterial AMR. However, the routine integration of genomics in surveillance pipelines still has considerable barriers to overcome. In 2022, a workshop series and online consultation brought together international experts in AMR and pathogen genomics to assess the status of genomic applications for AMR surveillance in a range of settings. Here we focus on discussions around the use of genomics for public health and international AMR surveillance, noting the potential advantages of, and barriers to, implementation, and proposing recommendations from the working group to help to drive the adoption of genomics in public health AMR surveillance. These recommendations include the need to build capacity for genome sequencing and analysis, harmonising and standardising surveillance systems, developing equitable data sharing and governance frameworks, and strengthening interactions and relationships among stakeholders at multiple levels.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".