ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Metagenomic Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing from Simulated Native Patient Samples.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Integrating machine learning and artificial intelligence in the management of Acinetobacter infections: a narrative review.Infection · 2026Review
- Metagenomics as a Transformative Tool for Antibiotic Resistance Surveillance: Highlighting the Impact of Mobile Genetic Elements with a Focus on the Complex Role of Phages.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Integrating sequencing methods with machine learning for antimicrobial susceptibility testing in pediatric infections: current advances and future insights.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Rapid nanopore sequencing and predictive susceptibility testing of positive blood cultures from intensive care patients with sepsis.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genomic antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) has been shown to be accurate for many pathogens and antimicrobials. However, these methods have not been systematically evaluated for clinical metagenomic data. We investigate the performance of in-silico AST from clinical metagenomes (MG-AST). Using isolate sequencing data from a multi-center study on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as well as shotgun-sequenced septic urine samples, we simulate over 2000 complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) metagenomes with known resistance phenotype to 5 antimicrobials. Applying rule-based and machine learning-based genomic AST classifiers, we explore the impact of sequencing depth and technology, metagenome complexity, and bioinformatics processing approaches on AST accuracy. By using an optimized metagenomics assembly and binning workflow, MG-AST achieved balanced accuracy within 5.1% of isolate-derived genomic AST. For poly-microbial infections, taxonomic sample complexity and relatedness of taxa in the sample is a key factor influencing metagenomic binning and downstream MG-AST accuracy. We show that the reassignment of putative plasmid contigs by their predicted host range and investigation of whole resistome capabilities improved MG-AST performance on poly-microbial samples. We further demonstrate that machine learning-based methods enable MG-AST with superior accuracy compared to rule-based approaches on simulated native patient samples.
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.