Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-hqrjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-13T01:52:39.083Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A bibliographic outlook: machine learning on biofilm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2024

A response to the following question: Can AI design life?

Yuanzhao Ding
Affiliation:
School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Shan Chen*
Affiliation:
Science of Learning in Education Centre, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
*
Corresponding author: Shan Chen; Email: chen.shan@nie.edu.sg
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A biofilm refers to an intricate community of microorganisms firmly attached to surfaces and enveloped within a self-generated extracellular matrix. Machine learning (ML) methodologies have been harnessed across diverse facets of biofilm research, encompassing predictions of biofilm formation, identification of pivotal genes and the formulation of novel therapeutic approaches. This investigation undertook a bibliographic analysis focused on ML applications in biofilm research, aiming to present a comprehensive overview of the field’s current status. Our exploration involved searching the Web of Science database for articles incorporating the term “machine learning biofilm,” leading to the identification and analysis of 126 pertinent articles. Our findings indicate a substantial upswing in the publication count concerning ML in biofilm over the last decade, underscoring an escalating interest in deploying ML techniques for biofilm investigations. The analysis further disclosed prevalent research themes, predominantly revolving around biofilm formation, prediction and control. Notably, artificial neural networks and support vector machines emerged as the most frequently employed ML techniques in biofilm research. Overall, our study furnishes valuable insights into prevailing trends and future trajectories within the realm of ML applied to biofilm research. It underscores the significance of collaborative efforts between biofilm researchers and ML experts, advocating for interdisciplinary synergy to propel innovation in this domain.

Information

Type
Results
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Most important words in this research field and their connection by VOSviewer.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Scientific collaboration network across different countries visualized using VOSviewer. Larger circles represent a higher number of published papers, while connecting lines indicate research collaborations.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Scientific collaboration network across different organizations visualized using VOSviewer. Larger circles represent a higher number of published papers, while connecting lines indicate research collaborations.

Figure 3

Table 1. Comparison between traditional prediction models versus machine learning (ML) models

Figure 4

Table 2. Summary of recent and important biofilm machine learning (ML) studies

Author comment: A Bibliographic Outlook: Machine Learning on Biofilm — R0/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: A Bibliographic Outlook: Machine Learning on Biofilm — R0/PR2

Comments

This timely paper discusses the utilization of machine learning in biofilm research, offering some insights into key terms, collaborative networks, and institutes in the biofilm field.

I have concerns regarding the analysis and discussion that must be addressed in a profoundly revised manuscript.

Introduction: It will be beneficial to refer to the natural spread of biofilms versus planktonic bacteria across environments (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0158-9)

Materials and Methods

Criteria selection:

A. The application of ML for identifying and predicting bacterial growth patterns. I am confused about how growth relates to biofilm. Did the authors specifically limit the growth of biofilm biomass? Otherwise, there is an excellent chance of simply eluting descriptive papers describing general phenotypes or responses to antibiotics.

B. Can the authors comment on the age of the examined papers? Also, why was the co-authorship analysis based on a paper from 2015? (Liu and Xia 2015) It might be a good idea to explain this analysis better in the methods.

C. Why was funding related to the topic not considered for an additional analysis, as it predicts future trends and is highly important?

Results

I would like the claims to be supported with data.

1. "The results of our analysis reveal a significant and accelerating interest in applying machine learning (ML) techniques to biofilm research over the past decade. Notably, the number of publications in this intersection has shown a rapid increase, indicating a growing recognition of the potential of ML in advancing biofilm-related studies." How many publications are discussed? Exact numbers should be provided in a result section.

2. Collaborations: This might be my concern, but I want to see how many papers are represented in each nodule.

3. I was primarily concerned regarding the vague description of Figure 3: " The institutions highlighted in Figure 3 collectively constitute a nexus of academic and medical excellence in the dynamic realm of Machine Learning on Biofilm. Their combined endeavors, marked by scholarly rigor and a collaborative spirit, contribute significantly to the vibrancy and dynamism of research activities in this burgeoning field. This collaborative ecosystem emphasizes the importance of a global network of institutions working synergistically to advance our understanding of the subject matter and collectively contribute to the overarching goals of scientific exploration in Machine Learning applications for Biofilm research. " A rigor scoring method should be identified to allow better understanding- Is the number of collaborations and citations? What is the metric method to obtain a score for each institution?

4. I believe a more quantitative approach should be utilized for every tested parameter of the research.

Discussion

The discussion seems like a somewhat random assembly of specific examples utilizing ML in biofilm research rather than a holistic summary of the main conclusions of the analysis, which could be due to the limited nature of the study.

Presentation

Overall score 4 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context and indicate the relevance of the results to the question or hypothesis under consideration? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Results

Overall score 2 out of 5
Is sufficient detail provided to allow replication of the study? (50%)
2 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the results clearly outlined? (50%)
4 out of 5

Decision: A Bibliographic Outlook: Machine Learning on Biofilm — R0/PR3

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Presentation

Overall score 4 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context and indicate the relevance of the results to the question or hypothesis under consideration? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Results

Overall score 3 out of 5
Is sufficient detail provided to allow replication of the study? (50%)
3 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the results clearly outlined? (50%)
3 out of 5

Author comment: A Bibliographic Outlook: Machine Learning on Biofilm — R1/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: A Bibliographic Outlook: Machine Learning on Biofilm — R1/PR5

Comments

Revisions look comprehensive and answer most o fetch reviewers concerns.