Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34662334›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2021

Machine learning to predict the source of campylobacteriosis using whole genome data.

Nicolas Arning, Samuel K Sheppard, Sion Bayliss, David A Clifton, Daniel J Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. AcceleratingProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Genomic insights and survival dynamics ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  10. Predicting clinical outcome ofMicrobial genomics · 2025
    Article
  11. The European Union One Health 2024 Zoonoses Report.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Source attribution of humanFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nicolas ArningBig Data institute, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, Old Road Campus, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9105-9571
Samuel K SheppardThe Milner Centre of Evolution, Department of Biology & Biochemistry, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6901-3203
Sion BaylissThe Milner Centre of Evolution, Department of Biology & Biochemistry, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5997-2002
David A CliftonDepartment of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Oxford-Suzhou Centre for Advanced Research, Suzhou, China.
Daniel J WilsonBig Data institute, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, Old Road Campus, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M011224/1Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/L015080/1Medical Research Council MR/M501608/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 088786/C/09/ZWellcome Trust 101237/Z/13/B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Campylobacteriosis is among the world's most common foodborne illnesses, caused predominantly by the bacterium Campylobacter jejuni. Effective interventions require determination of the infection source which is challenging as transmission occurs via multiple sources such as contaminated meat, poultry, and drinking water. Strain variation has allowed source tracking based upon allelic variation in multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) genes allowing isolates from infected individuals to be attributed to specific animal or environmental reservoirs. However, the accuracy of probabilistic attribution models has been limited by the ability to differentiate isolates based upon just 7 MLST genes. Here, we broaden the input data spectrum to include core genome MLST (cgMLST) and whole genome sequences (WGS), and implement multiple machine learning algorithms, allowing more accurate source attribution. We increase attribution accuracy from 64% using the standard iSource population genetic approach to 71% for MLST, 85% for cgMLST and 78% for kmerized WGS data using the classifier we named aiSource. To gain insight beyond the source model prediction, we use Bayesian inference to analyse the relative affinity of C. jejuni strains to infect humans and identified potential differences, in source-human transmission ability among clonally related isolates in the most common disease causing lineage (ST-21 clonal complex). Providing generalizable computationally efficient methods, based upon machine learning and population genetics, we provide a scalable approach to global disease surveillance that can continuously incorporate novel samples for source attribution and identify fine-scale variation in transmission potential.

Indexed as

AnimalsBayes TheoremCampylobacter InfectionsCampylobacter jejuniChickensGastroenteritisGenetics, PopulationHumansMachine LearningMeatMultilocus Sequence TypingWhole Genome Sequencing

Identifiers

PMID34662334
PMCPMC8553134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.