Comment on “Using genomic data and machine learning to predict antibiotic resistance: A tutorial paper”

A recent study by Faye Orcales and colleagues proposes a teaching curriculum on supervised machine learning applied to genomics data aimed at predicting antibiotic resistance. The article describes a traditional machine learning pipeline step-by-step in a way that is accessible to anyone, including novices. However, the authors provide a misleading piece of advice in the "Evaluating model performance" section, where they recommend that readers use accuracy and the F1 score for binary classification. We write this short formal comment on that article to reaffirm and explain why accuracy and the F1 score should be avoided in the evaluation of binary classification and why the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) should be employed instead. We also take this opportunity to warn readers about the dangers of k-fold cross-validation, which is suggested as a standard method for dividing data into training set and test set, but has several flaws and pitfalls.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS Computational Biology
Published
2025-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013673
Primary Topic
Gene expression and cancer classification
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comment on “Using genomic data and machine learning to predict antibiotic resistance: A tutorial paper”

Davide Chicco, Giuseppe Jurman
PLoS Computational Biology
Gene expression and cancer classification
article

Comment on “Using genomic data and machine learning to predict antibiotic resistance: A tutorial paper”

Davide Chicco, Giuseppe Jurman
article en

Abstract

A recent study by Faye Orcales and colleagues proposes a teaching curriculum on supervised machine learning applied to genomics data aimed at predicting antibiotic resistance. The article describes a traditional machine learning pipeline step-by-step in a way that is accessible to anyone, including novices. However, the authors provide a misleading piece of advice in the "Evaluating model performance" section, where they recommend that readers use accuracy and the F1 score for binary classification. We write this short formal comment on that article to reaffirm and explain why accuracy and the F1 score should be avoided in the evaluation of binary classification and why the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) should be employed instead. We also take this opportunity to warn readers about the dangers of k-fold cross-validation, which is suggested as a standard method for dividing data into training set and test set, but has several flaws and pitfalls.

PLoS Computational BiologyVol. 21(12)
Humanitas University (IT), University of Toronto (CA), Fondazione Bruno Kessler (IT), University of Milano-Bicocca (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 66%
Gene expression and cancer classification
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.