MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404199762 · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-53930-x

Next-generation rapid phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing

2024· review· en· W4404199762 on OpenAlexafffund
Grace Reszetnik, Keely Hammond, Sara Mahshid, Tamer AbdElFatah, Dao Nguyen, Rachel Corsini, Chelsea Caya, Jesse Papenburg, Matthew P. Cheng, Cédric P. Yansouni

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéPfizer CanadaMcGill University Health CentrePfizer
KeywordsPhenotypeAntimicrobialBiologyComputational biologyGeneticsMicrobiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Slow progress towards implementation of conventional clinical bacteriology in low resource settings and strong interest in greater speed for antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) more generally has focused attention on next-generation rapid AST technologies. In this Review, we systematically synthesize publications and submissions to regulatory agencies describing technologies that provide phenotypic AST faster than conventional methods. We characterize over ninety technologies in terms of underlying technical innovations, technology readiness level, extent of clinical validation, and time-to-results. This work provides a guide for technology developers and clinical microbiologists to understand the rapid phenotypic AST technology landscape, current development pipeline, and AST-specific validation milestones.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFrench-language works237,207