Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Antibiotic resistance poses one of the most urgent challenges to public health worldwide. During this process, bacteria acquire genetic mutations that help them to become resistant to antibiotics.

Petri dish © Adobe Stock

If bacteria become completely resistant to all antibiotics, this treatment will effectively become useless, and simple infections could cause deaths. In fact, this problem is already causing an estimated 1.3 million deaths every year.

One of the biggest challenges is that current testing methods can take up to two days to determine the most effective antibiotic for an infection. The goal of the Oxford Martin Programme on Antimicrobial Resistance Testing was to create a test that detects whether a patient’s bacteria are resistant to antibiotics within an hour. The test works by taking images of a patient’s bacteria under a microscope and using artificial intelligence (AI) to look for any changes that occur when antibiotics are applied to these samples. We recently published results from our citizen science project that investigated what makes some of these bacteria harder for AI to classify.

We collected thousands of images of resistant and sensitive bacteria treated with antibiotics. Bacteria that are sensitive to an antibiotic treatment develop changes to their shape, DNA, and cell wall. The AI model learns to detect these changes by studying images of bacteria that have responded to the antibiotic treatment and images of bacteria that don’t.

Sometimes, even though our AI model has seen thousands of images of antibiotic-treated bacteria, it still makes mistakes. In a recent research paper, we showed that our current model is about 80% accurate at classifying each Escherichia coli (E. coli) cell. Although this leads to very high confidence when determining whether a whole sample is antibiotic sensitive or resistant, we want our diagnostic test to be as robust as possible.

We noticed that there was some variation in the extent to which E. coli cells changed after the antibiotic treatment, even when they were treated with the same concentration of antibiotic and had the same level of antibiotic resistance. In some cases, cells that looked like a resistant cell were actually sensitive, and vice versa. We started the Infection Inspection project to see which bacterial cells were most likely to be misinterpreted by volunteers, so that we could learn what features might also confuse the AI model. Then, we could focus on understanding those types of cells in our future research. We were also curious whether humans could detect more nuanced features than the AI model.

Volunteers were shown a picture of an E. coli cell that we treated with the antibiotic ciprofloxacin, stained, and imaged with our microscope. Because we grew the E. coli from strains collected at the hospital microbiology laboratory, we knew which strains were sensitive or resistant to ciprofloxacin on standard tests. Equipped with the field guide, volunteers could classify each image as resistant, sensitive, or an image processing error.

Read the full story on the Oxford Martin School website.

 

 

Similar stories

Typhoid vaccine trial confirms sustained protection for older children

A single dose of typhoid conjugate vaccine (TCV) offers safe, effective protection against typhoid two years after vaccination in all children, and sustained protection for older children at three to five years post immunisation, according to a report by researchers at the Oxford Vaccine Group and the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b). But it also shows a decline in protection at the later timepoints among children vaccinated at younger ages.