ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2025
Integrating sequencing methods with machine learning for antimicrobial susceptibility testing in pediatric infections: current advances and future insights.
Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- ALPAR: automated learning pipeline for antimicrobial resistance.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Antimicrobial Resistance in Pediatric Infections: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Directions.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Clinical efficacy of plasma cell-free DNA metagenomic next-generation sequencing in diagnosing bloodstream infections.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Development and internal-external validation of a machine learning-based risk prediction model for multidrug resistance in mechanically ventilated ICU patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The transformative impact of ultra-rapid nanopore sequencing in precision medicine.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Next generation sequencing as a panacea for antibiotic susceptibility testing: yea or nay?Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) presents a critical challenge in clinical settings, particularly among pediatric patients with life-threatening conditions such as sepsis, meningitis, and neonatal infections. The increasing prevalence of multi- and pan-resistant pathogens is strongly associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Recent technological advances in sequencing methods, including metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT), and targeted sequencing (TS), have significantly enhanced the detection of both pathogens and their associated resistance genes. However, discrepancies between resistance gene detection and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) often hinder the direct clinical application of sequencing results. These inconsistencies may arise from factors such as genetic mutations or variants in resistance genes, differences in the phenotypic expression of resistance, and the influence of environmental conditions on resistance levels, which can lead to variations in the observed resistance patterns. Machine learning (ML) provides a promising solution by integrating large-scale resistance data with sequencing outcomes, enabling more accurate predictions of pathogen drug susceptibility. This review explores the application of sequencing technologies and ML in the context of pediatric infections, with a focus on their potential to track the evolution of resistance genes and predict antibiotic susceptibility. The goal of this review is to promote the incorporation of ML-based predictions into clinical practice, thereby improving the management of AMR in pediatric populations.
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.