Redefining cross-resistance, co-resistance and co-selection: beyond confusion?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The similarity of current definitions of 'cross-resistance' and 'co-resistance' continues to cause confusion both in the scientific community as well as in understanding policies and in particular when looking at resistance from a risk assessment perspective. Further, lack of harmonized definitions of these terms in the regulatory space is challenging for interpretation. The purpose of this article is to: (i) provide an overview of the ambiguity in existing terminology related to cross-resistance, co-resistance and co-selection; (ii) emphasize the challenges created by the use of poor terminology in research and scientific literature; and (iii) propose a clear set of harmonized definitions that could be put into use through international regulatory agencies and institutions, such as the World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, Center for Disease Control, Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products, World Organization for Animal Health/Office International des Epizooties and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".