Back

A systematic analysis of machine learning pipelines for robust antimicrobial resistance prediction

Aselstyne, A.; Karthik, E. N.; El Azami, M.; Pogorelcnik, R.; Fournier, Q.; Chandar, S.

2026-07-08 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.06.28.734076 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Motivation: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been identified as a top global public health threat. Accurate AMR phenotype prediction from whole-genome sequencing data is an essential tool for accelerating clinical decision-making and mitigating resistance spread. Although many previous works have explored the use of tree-based machine learning (ML) models to predict resistance, the field lacks a systematic evaluation of the training pipeline across a variety of pathogenic species and antibiotics. Results: Using nine clinically relevant species-antibiotic combinations from the NCBI antimicrobial susceptibility testing database, we present a detailed analysis of the ML pipeline and identify key factors affecting model performance and evaluation. We begin by relabelling all isolates using current CLSI minimum inhibitory concentration breakpoints to resolve inconsistencies and increase available data, resulting in up to a 19% label swap and 56% data enlargement per species-antibiotic combination. We identify several key training parameters including k-mer length, which can increase classification F1 scores by over 20 points compared to commonly used k-values, feature matrix truncation, which can induce polynomial time reductions with limited performance reduction, and ML model class. By comparing 5-fold cross-validation with evaluation on an unseen clinical dataset, we show that random cross-validation splits--often criticized as overly optimistic--can act as a strong proxy for downstream clinical performance, yielding closer F1 scores than phylogeny-aware splits in all cases. We finally present an interpretability study which shows that over 95% of k-mers used by our models are associated with identifiable genomic features. Our results highlight the importance of feature design, evaluation protocol, and biological analysis in genomic AMR prediction, and support tree-based models as a robust and interpretable method.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 3%
10.9%
2
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
9.6%
3
Microbial Genomics
225 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
7.8%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 13%
6.2%
5
npj Antimicrobials and Resistance
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.4%
6
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 30%
5.1%
7
Bioinformatics Advances
203 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.3%
8
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
9
BMC Genomics
406 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
10
BioData Mining
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
11
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.7%
12
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.4%
13
Frontiers in Microbiology
427 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
14
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.7%
15
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
130 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
16
BMC Microbiology
49 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.4%
17
Briefings in Bioinformatics
354 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
18
JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
19
Microbiology Spectrum
469 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.1%
20
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
21
F1000Research
88 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
22
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
202 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
23
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
24
mSphere
302 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
25
Genome Medicine
183 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
26
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
238 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
27
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
28
Frontiers in Genetics
230 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
29
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
30
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
187 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%