ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Comment on "Using genomic data and machine learning to predict antibiotic resistance: A tutorial paper".
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Response to comment on "Using genomic data and machine learning to predict antibiotic resistance: A tutorial paper".PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A recent study by Faye Orcales and colleagues proposes a teaching curriculum on supervised machine learning applied to genomics data aimed at predicting antibiotic resistance. The article describes a traditional machine learning pipeline step-by-step in a way that is accessible to anyone, including novices. However, the authors provide a misleading piece of advice in the "Evaluating model performance" section, where they recommend that readers use accuracy and the F1 score for binary classification. We write this short formal comment on that article to reaffirm and explain why accuracy and the F1 score should be avoided in the evaluation of binary classification and why the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) should be employed instead. We also take this opportunity to warn readers about the dangers of k-fold cross-validation, which is suggested as a standard method for dividing data into training set and test set, but has several flaws and pitfalls.
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.