Articlenpj antimicrobials and resistance2026
Prediction of antimicrobial minimum inhibitory concentration from bacterial genomes using a scalable and interpretable machine learning approach.
Article in npj antimicrobials and resistance, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although machine learning models can predict antimicrobial susceptibility from bacterial whole genome sequencing (WGS), state-of-the-art approaches are computationally demanding or dependent on knowledge of genetic resistance determinants. Here, we describe an efficient data-driven approach to predicting minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) by progressively extending and refining predictive genome segments, independent of prior knowledge of resistance determinants. Resultant models had high interpretability - known and potentially novel resistance determinants were captured. Using 762 clinical E. coli strains, 71.6% of predictions were within one dilution of the measured MIC. Models trained with this algorithm generalised better onto external data (F1 score = 0.85) compared with alternative models trained on annotated resistance determinants (F1 = 0.82) or k-mer counts (F1 = 0.74). Computational demands were low (RAM usage 23.6GB vs 38.8GB for k-mer model). These advantages represent an important advance in predicting antimicrobial susceptibility from WGS, with potential applications for clinical diagnostics, drug development, and surveillance.
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.