ArticlemBio2026
Confidence-based prediction of antibiotic resistance at the patient level.
Article in mBio, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rapid and accurate diagnostics of bacterial infections are necessary for efficient treatment of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Cultivation-based methods, such as antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST), are limited by bacterial growth rates and seldom yield results before treatment needs to start, increasing patient risk and contributing to antibiotic overprescription. Here, we present a deep-learning method that leverages patient data and available AST results to predict antibiotic susceptibilities that have not yet been measured. After training on three million AST results from 30 European countries, the method achieved an average accuracy of 93% across bacterial species and antibiotics. It predicted susceptibility with an average major error rate below 5% for quinolones, cephalosporins, and carbapenems, and below 8% and 14% for aminoglycosides and penicillins, respectively. Furthermore, the model predicted resistance with an average very major error rate below 10% for cephalosporins, carbapenems, and aminoglycosides, but with higher very major error rates for penicillins and quinolones. We combined the method with conformal prediction and demonstrated accurate estimation of the predictive uncertainty at the patient level. Our results suggest that artificial intelligence-based decision support may offer new means to meet the growing burden of antibiotic resistance.IMPORTANCEImproved diagnostic tools are vital for maintaining efficient treatment of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and for reducing antibiotic overconsumption. In our research, we introduce a new deep learning-based method capable of predicting untested antibiotic resistance phenotypes. The method uses transformers, a powerful artificial intelligence (AI) technique that efficiently leverages both antibiotic susceptibility tests (AST) and patient data simultaneously. The model produces predictions that can be used as time- and cost-efficient alternatives to results from cultivation-based diagnostic assays. Significantly, our study highlights the potential of AI technologies to address the increasing prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections.
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.