Evidence Hub

Machine learning for predicting antimicrobial resistance in critical and high-priority pathogens: A systematic review considering antimicrobial susceptibility tests in real-world healthcare settings

Ardila CM, González-Arroyave D, Tobón S

PloS one, 2025

688,107 participants · 18 citations

Abstract

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a worldwide health threat; quick and accurate identification of AMR enhances patient outcomes and reduces inappropriate antibiotic usage. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy of machine learning (ML) approaches in predicting AMR in critical and high-priority pathogens (CHPP), considering antimicrobial susceptibility tests in real-world healthcare settings.

Methods: The search methodology encompassed the examination of several databases, such as PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and SCIELO. An extensive electronic database search was conducted from the inception of these databases until November 2024.

Results: After completing the final step of the eligibility assessment, the systematic review ultimately included 21 papers. All included studies were cohort observational studies assessing 688,107 patients and 1,710,867 antimicrobial susceptibility tests. GBDT, Random Forest, and XGBoost were the top-performing ML models for predicting antibiotic resistance in CHPP infections. GBDT exhibited the highest AuROC values compared to Logistic Regression (LR), with a mean value of 0.80 (range 0.77-0.90) and 0.68 (range 0.50-0.83), respectively. Similarly, Random Forest generally showed better AuROC values compared to LR (mean value 0.75, range 0.58-0.98 versus mean value 0.71, range 0.61-0.83). However, some predictors selected by these algorithms align with those suggested by LR.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 688,107 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free