ArticleAmerican journal of veterinary research2025
Antimicrobial minimum inhibitory concentrations can be imputed from phenotypic data using a random forest approach.
Article in American journal of veterinary research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a public health threat requiring monitoring across multiple sectors because AMR genes and pathogens can pass between humans, animals, and the environment. Idiosyncrasies in AMR data, including missing data and changes in testing protocols, make characterizing AMR trends over time and sectors challenging. Therefore, this study applied machine learning methods to impute missing minimum inhibitory concentrations. Methods: Models were built using cattle-associated Escherichia coli from the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System. Random forest models were designed to predict the minimum inhibitory concentration of a given E coli isolate for 10 antimicrobials. Predictors included isolate metadata and the minimum inhibitory concentrations of other antimicrobials. Model performance was evaluated on held-out test data and 2 external datasets (E coli isolated from chickens and humans). Results: Overall, the accuracy within 1 minimum inhibitory concentration category was over 80% for all 10 antimicrobials and over 90% for 5 antimicrobials on test data. Six of the models performed as well on both external datasets as on test data, whereas the remaining 4 had similar accuracy on the human dataset but lower on the chicken data. Conclusions: These results indicate that the models can predict minimum inhibitory concentration values at a level of accuracy that would be helpful for imputation in resistance datasets. Clinical Relevance: The imputation of missing minimum inhibitory concentrations would allow for better evaluation of AMR trends over time, helping inform stewardship policies. These models may also help streamline surveillance and clinical susceptibility testing because they suggest which antimicrobials need to be laboratory-tested and which can be extrapolated by modeling.
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.