Diagnostics 2026, 16(13), 2103; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16132103 (registering DOI) - 4 Jul 2026
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the feasibility and reproducibility of predicting antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Escherichia coli from MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry data using a standardized, open-source machine learning (ML) workflow, we systematically compared four ML algorithms, evaluated the impact of culture conditions, extract storage, and
[...] Read more.
Objectives: To assess the feasibility and reproducibility of predicting antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Escherichia coli from MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry data using a standardized, open-source machine learning (ML) workflow, we systematically compared four ML algorithms, evaluated the impact of culture conditions, extract storage, and spectral preprocessing on model performance, and validated results through nested cross-validation with statistical significance testing. Methods: A total of 282 clinical E. coli isolates were analyzed. Two MALDI-TOF MS datasets were generated from freshly cultured extracts (T1) and recultured isolates one year later (T3), yielding 4468 spectra. A third dataset from the T1 extracts stored at −20 °C for one year (T2) was evaluated for spectral stability but excluded from primary modeling likely due to storage-induced degradation. Protein spectra (m/z 2000–15,000) were preprocessed using an in-house developed MALDI-TOF preprocessing pipeline (MTPP) comprising variance stabilization, Savitzky–Golay smoothing, SNIP baseline correction, TIC normalization, LOWESS alignment, and MAD-based peak detection (SNR ≥ 3), yielding 121 m/z features. Four classifiers—Random Forest (RF), Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, and Gradient Boosting—were trained to predict resistance to 11 antibiotics using nested cross-validation: outer GroupShuffleSplit (5-fold, isolate-level) for evaluation and inner GroupKFold for recursive feature elimination (RFECV) and hyperparameter tuning (RandomizedSearchCV). Classification thresholds were optimized via the precision–recall curve. Model performance was assessed using AUROC, AUPRC, F1-score, Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), and bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (1000 replicates). Pairwise model comparisons were tested with McNemar’s chi-squared test. Results: Among the 12 antibiotics included in the analysis (meropenem excluded for absence of resistance), resistance prevalence ranged from 1.1% (colistin) to 59.9% (amoxicillin). Colistin was subsequently also excluded from ML modeling due to insufficient resistant isolates (n = 3), leaving 11 antibiotics for prediction. The best predictive performance was observed for ciprofloxacin (AUROC 0.76 [95% CI 0.74–0.77]; F1 0.54; MCC 0.38) and ceftazidime (AUROC 0.68 [0.65–0.71]; F1 0.36; MCC 0.29), using 13 and 37 RFECV-selected features, respectively. Amoxicillin achieved the highest F1-score (0.76), driven by high recall (0.98) but modest AUROC (0.58). No meaningful predictive signal was detected for amikacin, cefepime, or tigecycline (AUROC ≤ 0.57, F1 ≤ 0.17), attributable to extreme class imbalance, and no robust multi-peak resistance signature was detected in this dataset. McNemar’s test confirmed that RF significantly outperformed Logistic Regression for all antibiotics (p < 0.01), while Gradient Boosting performed comparably to RF for ciprofloxacin (p = 0.17) and ceftazidime (p = 0.28). Frozen extracts (T2) produced lower spectral similarity and were excluded from model training; the aligned T1+3 dataset yielded the most stable performance across metrics. Conclusions: Machine learning analysis of MALDI-TOF spectra enables reproducible AMR prediction for selected antibiotics in E. coli, with ciprofloxacin and ceftazidime showing the strongest signal. Nested isolate-level cross-validation, multi-model comparison with statistical testing, and open-source code provide a transparent, reproducible foundation for integrating ML-assisted MALDI-TOF analysis into diagnostic AMR surveillance. Extract storage at −20 °C degrades spectral quality and should be avoided in ML training workflows.
Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Artificial Intelligence in Diagnostics: From Algorithms to Clinical Impact)
►
Show Figures
Figure 1
