Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39417635›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2024

GPT-4-based AI agents-the new expert system for detection of antimicrobial resistance mechanisms?

Christian G Giske, Michelle Bressan, Farah Fiechter, Vladimira Hinic, Stefano Mancini, Oliver Nolte, Adrian Egli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Artificial intelligence in clinical microbiology: results from the first National survey by the Italian association of clinical microbiologists.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. AI Agents in Clinical Medicine: A Systematic Review.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

7 authors.

Christian G Giske *Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Michelle Bressan *Institute of Medical Microbiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Farah FiechterInstitute of Medical Microbiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Vladimira HinicInstitute of Medical Microbiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Stefano ManciniInstitute of Medical Microbiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-4516-5952
Oliver Nolte *Institute of Medical Microbiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Adrian Egli *Institute of Medical Microbiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3564-8603

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) recommends two steps for detecting beta-lactamases in Gram-negative bacteria. Screening for potential extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL), plasmid-mediated AmpC beta-lactamase, or carbapenemase production is confirmed. We aimed to validate generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)-4 and GPT-agent for pre-classification of disk diffusion to indicate potential beta-lactamases. We assigned 225 Gram-negative isolates based on phenotypic resistances against beta-lactam antibiotics and additional tests to one or more resistance mechanisms as follows: "none," "ESBL," "AmpC," or "carbapenemase." Next, we customized a GPT-agent with EUCAST guidelines and breakpoint table (v13.1). We compared routine diagnostics (reference) to those of (i) EUCAST-GPT-expert, (ii) microbiologists, and (iii) non-customized GPT-4. We determined sensitivities and specificities to flag suspect resistances. Three microbiologists showed concordance in 814/862 (94.4%) phenotypic categories and were used in median eight words (interquartile range [IQR] 4-11) for reasoning. Median sensitivity/specificity for ESBL, AmpC, and carbapenemase were 98%/99.1%, 96.8%/97.1%, and 95.5%/98.5%, respectively. Three prompts of EUCAST-GPT-expert showed concordance in 706/862 (81.9%) categories but were used in median 158 words (IQR 140-174) for reasoning. Sensitivity/specificity for ESBL, AmpC, and carbapenemase prediction were 95.4%/69.23%, 96.9%/86.3%, and 100%/98.8%, respectively. Non-customized GPT-4 could interpret 169/862 (19.6%) categories, and 137/169 (81.1%) agreed with routine diagnostics. Non-customized GPT-4 was used in median 85 words (IQR 72-105) for reasoning. Microbiologists showed higher concordance and shorter argumentations compared to GPT-agents. Humans showed higher specificities compared to GPT-agents. GPT-agent's unspecific flagging of ESBL and AmpC potentially results in additional testing, diagnostic delays, and higher costs. GPT-4 is not approved by regulatory bodies, but validation of large language models is needed. IMPORTANCE: The study titled "GPT-4-based AI agents-the new expert system for detection of antimicrobial resistance mechanisms?" is critically important as it explores the integration of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, like generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)-4, into the field of laboratory medicine, specifically in the diagnostics of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). With the growing challenge of AMR, there is a pressing need for innovative solutions that can enhance diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. This research assesses the capability of AI to support the existing two-step confirmatory process recommended by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for detecting beta-lactamases in Gram-negative bacteria. By potentially speeding up and improving the precision of initial screenings, AI could reduce the time to appropriate treatment interventions. Furthermore, this study is vital for validating the reliability and safety of AI tools in clinical settings, ensuring they meet stringent regulatory standards before they can be broadly implemented. This could herald a significant shift in how laboratory diagnostics are performed, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-LactamasesGram-Negative BacteriaMicrobial Sensitivity TestsArtificial IntelligenceBacterial ProteinsDrug Resistance, BacterialHumansSensitivity and SpecificityAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial Proteinsbeta-LactamasescarbapenemaseAI agentantimicrobial resistanceartificial intelligenceChatGPTdiagnosticsEUCASTGPT-4inhibition zonesKirby-Bauer methodlarge language modelmulti-modal AIscreening

Identifiers

PMID39417635
PMCPMC11559085

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.