ArticleArtificial intelligence in medicine2022
Assessing putative bias in prediction of anti-microbial resistance from real-world genotyping data under explicit causal assumptions.
Article in Artificial intelligence in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antibiotic-Specific Genotype-Phenotype Concordance and Cross-Database Interoperability in PublicInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Integrating machine learning and artificial intelligence in the management of Acinetobacter infections: a narrative review.Infection · 2026Review
- Revisiting the Metallo-International journal of microbiology · 2025Review
- Generative AI in microbial evolution and resistance: toward robust, explainable, and equitable predictions.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Towards routine employment of computational tools for antimicrobial resistance determination via high-throughput sequencing.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Whole genome sequencing (WGS) is quickly becoming the customary means for identification of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) due to its ability to obtain high resolution information about the genes and mechanisms that are causing resistance and driving pathogen mobility. By contrast, traditional phenotypic (antibiogram) testing cannot easily elucidate such information. Yet development of AMR prediction tools from genotype-phenotype data can be biased, since sampling is non-randomized. Sample provenience, period of collection, and species representation can confound the association of genetic traits with AMR. Thus, prediction models can perform poorly on new data with sampling distribution shifts. In this work -under an explicit set of causal assumptions- we evaluate the effectiveness of propensity-based rebalancing and confounding adjustment on antibiotic resistance prediction using genotype-phenotype AMR data from the Pathosystems Resource Integration Center (PATRIC). We select bacterial genotypes (encoded as k-mer signatures, i.e., DNA fragments of length k), country, year, species, and AMR phenotypes for the tetracycline drug class, preparing test data with recent genomes coming from a single country. We test boosted logistic regression (BLR) and random forests (RF) with/without bias-handling. On 10,936 instances, we find evidence of species, location and year imbalance with respect to the AMR phenotype. The crude versus bias-adjusted change in effect of genetic signatures on AMR varies but only moderately (selecting the top 20,000 out of 40+ million k-mers). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of the RF (0.95) is comparable to that of BLR (0.94) on both out-of-bag samples from bootstrap and the external test (n = 1085), where AUROCs do not decrease. We observe a 1 %-5 % gain in AUROC with bias-handling compared to the sole use of genetic signatures. In conclusion, we recommend using causally-informed prediction methods for modeling real-world AMR data; however, traditional adjustment or propensity-based methods may not provide advantage in all use cases and further methodological development should be sought.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.