SynthesisBriefings in bioinformatics2026
A systematic review of machine learning on clinical MALDI-TOF MS.
Synthesis in Briefings in bioinformatics, 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.
- Benchmarking deep learning architectures for MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry in infectious disease diagnostics and vector-borne disease surveillance.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Automated web-based typing of Clostridioides difficile ribotypes via MALDI-TOF MS.BMC bioinformatics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bacterial identification, antimicrobial resistance prediction, and strain typification are critical tasks in clinical microbiology, essential for guiding patient treatment and controlling the spread of infectious diseases. While machine learning (ML) has shown immense promise in enhancing Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) applications for these tasks, there is currently no comprehensive review that fully addresses this from a technical ML perspective. To address this gap, we systematically reviewed 115 studies published between 2004 and 2025, focusing on key ML aspects such as data size and balance, preprocessing pipelines, model selection and evaluation, open-source data, and code availability. Our analysis highlights the predominant use of classical ML models like Random Forest and Support Vector Machines, alongside emerging interest in deep learning approaches for handling complex, high-dimensional data. Despite significant progress, challenges such as inconsistent preprocessing workflows, reliance on black-box models, limited external validation, and insufficient open-source resources persist, hindering transparency, reproducibility, and broader adoption. This review offers actionable insights to enhance ML-driven bacterial diagnostics, advocating for standardized methodologies, greater transparency, and improved data accessibility. In addition, we provide guidelines on how to approach ML for MALDI-TOF MS analysis, helping researchers navigate key decisions in model development and evaluation.
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.