Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38706320›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024

Assessing computational predictions of antimicrobial resistance phenotypes from microbial genomes.

Kaixin Hu, Fernando Meyer, Zhi-Luo Deng, Ehsaneddin Asgari, Tzu-Hao Kuo, Philipp C Münch, Alice C McHardy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Harnessing interpretable deep learning to predict resistance inFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Predicting clinical outcome ofMicrobial genomics · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Kaixin HuComputational Biology of Infection Research, Helmholtz Center for Infection Research, Braunschweig, Germany.
Fernando MeyerComputational Biology of Infection Research, Helmholtz Center for Infection Research, Braunschweig, Germany.
Zhi-Luo DengComputational Biology of Infection Research, Helmholtz Center for Infection Research, Braunschweig, Germany.
Ehsaneddin AsgariComputational Biology of Infection Research, Helmholtz Center for Infection Research, Braunschweig, Germany.
Tzu-Hao KuoComputational Biology of Infection Research, Helmholtz Center for Infection Research, Braunschweig, Germany.
Philipp C MünchComputational Biology of Infection Research, Helmholtz Center for Infection Research, Braunschweig, Germany.
Alice C McHardyComputational Biology of Infection Research, Helmholtz Center for Infection Research, Braunschweig, Germany.

Funding

Cluster of Excellence RESISTDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 390874280DFG 460129525Digital Health (TI BBD) TI 12.002German Center for Infection Research (DZIF) Translational Infrastructure BioresourcesNFDI4Microbiota
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advent of rapid whole-genome sequencing has created new opportunities for computational prediction of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) phenotypes from genomic data. Both rule-based and machine learning (ML) approaches have been explored for this task, but systematic benchmarking is still needed. Here, we evaluated four state-of-the-art ML methods (Kover, PhenotypeSeeker, Seq2Geno2Pheno and Aytan-Aktug), an ML baseline and the rule-based ResFinder by training and testing each of them across 78 species-antibiotic datasets, using a rigorous benchmarking workflow that integrates three evaluation approaches, each paired with three distinct sample splitting methods. Our analysis revealed considerable variation in the performance across techniques and datasets. Whereas ML methods generally excelled for closely related strains, ResFinder excelled for handling divergent genomes. Overall, Kover most frequently ranked top among the ML approaches, followed by PhenotypeSeeker and Seq2Geno2Pheno. AMR phenotypes for antibiotic classes such as macrolides and sulfonamides were predicted with the highest accuracies. The quality of predictions varied substantially across species-antibiotic combinations, particularly for beta-lactams; across species, resistance phenotyping of the beta-lactams compound, aztreonam, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, cefoxitin, ceftazidime and piperacillin/tazobactam, alongside tetracyclines demonstrated more variable performance than the other benchmarked antibiotics. By organism, Campylobacter jejuni and Enterococcus faecium phenotypes were more robustly predicted than those of Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella enterica, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. In addition, our study provides software recommendations for each species-antibiotic combination. It furthermore highlights the need for optimization for robust clinical applications, particularly for strains that diverge substantially from those used for training.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsPhenotypeBacteriaComputational BiologyDrug Resistance, BacterialGenome, BacterialGenome, MicrobialHumansMachine LearningAnti-Bacterial AgentsAMRantimicrobial resistancebenchmarkingmachine learningphenotype prediction

Identifiers

PMID38706320
PMCPMC11070729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.