MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406943260 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofae631.598

P-397. Rapid Prediction of Genetic Relatedness of <i>Escherichia coli</i> Direct from Critical Care Samples Using Metagenomic Sequencing Paired with Neighbour Typing

2025· article· en· W4406943260 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amanda C Carroll, Leanne Mortimer, Hiren Ghosh, Sandra Reuter, Hajo Grundmann, Karel Břinda, William P. Hanage, Angel Li, Andrew Purssell, Bryan Coburn, Ashley M. Rooney, Shola Able-Thomas, Martin Antonio, Derek R. MacFadden, Allison McGeer

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalSinai Health SystemUniversity of OttawaUniversity Health NetworkOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetagenomicsTypingComputational biologyMedicineEscherichia coliGeneticsBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Determining relatedness of bacterial pathogens within hospitals is important to rule out transmission events, but current approaches are typically slow and/or resource intensive. We sought to assess the utility of rapid long-read sequencing with nearest neighbour-typing for identifying relatedness direct from specimens. Figure 1. Plot of true and predicted genetic distances for E. coli. (a) All comparisons. (B) Only concordant comparisons. (C) All comparisons with LS&amp;lt;0.5. (D) All comparisons with LS&amp;gt;0.5. Green data points are predictions based on concordant calls, and orange data points are predictions based on discordant calls. Methods We sequenced remnant urine (n=71) and respiratory (n=7) samples with confirmed Escherichia coli (n=78) using ONT MinION, from critical care units at two large tertiary care institutions in Ontario, Canada. The resistance RASE method was used to predict the nearest neighbour for all samples. Using the nearest neighbours and the known reference database phylogeny, we predicted genetic (pairwise) distances (percentage). We then compared the predicted genetic distances with the true genetic distances. Plots visualizing the true and predicted genetic distances were generated and linear models performed. Genetic distance predictions were categorized as: (1) concordant (matching predicted and true sequence types) vs. discordant; and (2) high confidence in prediction (lineage score [LS] &amp;gt;0.5) vs. low confidence in prediction (LS &amp;lt; 0.5). Results For all specimens, predicted genetic distances demonstrated a modest but significant correlation (R2=0.52, p&amp;lt; 0.001) with true genetic distances (Fig 1A). Predictions of genetic distance were most accurate when the predicted sequence type matched the true sequence type (R2=0.99, p&amp;lt; 0.001) (Fig 1B). Using the lineage score improved the accuracy of genetic distance predictions (R2=0.744, p&amp;lt; 0.001) (Fig 1C-D). Using a genetic distance cut-off of 0.002 to denote unrelated (non-transmitted) events, as determined by the frequency distribution of genetic distances, a lineage score informed approach could identify genetically unrelated E. coli with a specificity of 0.99, sensitivity of 0.96, and positive predictive value of 0.99. Conclusion Rapid predictions of genetic-relatedness can be made directly from specimens using long-read sequencing paired with neighbour-typing. We demonstrate that in high confidence calls, the potential for related transmission between infections can be effectively ruled out. Disclosures Allison McGeer, MD, AstraZeneca: Honoraria|GSK: Honoraria|Merck: Honoraria|Moderna: Honoraria|Novavax: Honoraria|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support|Pfizer: Honoraria|Roche: Honoraria|Seqirus: Grant/Research Support|Seqirus: Honoraria

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207