Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35612324›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews2022

Machine Learning for Antimicrobial Resistance Prediction: Current Practice, Limitations, and Clinical Perspective.

Jee In Kim, Finlay Maguire, Kara K Tsang, Theodore Gouliouris, Sharon J Peacock, Tim A McAllister, Andrew G McArthur, Robert G Beiko

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 113 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
113citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

113 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

53 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Jee In KimFaculty of Computer Science, Dalhousie Universitygrid.55602.34, Halifax, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1729-4474
Finlay MaguireFaculty of Computer Science, Dalhousie Universitygrid.55602.34, Halifax, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1203-9514
Kara K TsangLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7742-8855
Theodore GouliourisDepartment of Medicine, University of Cambridgegrid.5335.0, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Sharon J PeacockDepartment of Medicine, University of Cambridgegrid.5335.0, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Tim A McAllisterLethbridge Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8266-6513
Andrew G McArthurDavid Braley Centre for Antibiotic Discovery, McMaster Universitygrid.25073.33, Hamilton, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1142-3063
Robert G BeikoFaculty of Computer Science, Dalhousie Universitygrid.55602.34, Halifax, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5065-4980

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health crisis that poses a great threat to modern medicine. Effective prevention strategies are urgently required to slow the emergence and further dissemination of AMR. Given the availability of data sets encompassing hundreds or thousands of pathogen genomes, machine learning (ML) is increasingly being used to predict resistance to different antibiotics in pathogens based on gene content and genome composition. A key objective of this work is to advocate for the incorporation of ML into front-line settings but also highlight the further refinements that are necessary to safely and confidently incorporate these methods. The question of what to predict is not trivial given the existence of different quantitative and qualitative laboratory measures of AMR. ML models typically treat genes as independent predictors, with no consideration of structural and functional linkages; they also may not be accurate when new mutational variants of known AMR genes emerge. Finally, to have the technology trusted by end users in public health settings, ML models need to be transparent and explainable to ensure that the basis for prediction is clear. We strongly advocate that the next set of AMR-ML studies should focus on the refinement of these limitations to be able to bridge the gap to diagnostic implementation.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, BacterialMachine LearningAnti-Bacterial Agentsantimicrobial resistancemachine learning

Identifiers

PMID35612324
PMCPMC9491192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.