ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2017
Multicenter Evaluation of an Image Analysis Device (APAS): Comparison Between Digital Image and Traditional Plate Reading Using Urine Cultures.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proceedings of the Clinical Microbiology Open 2024: artificial intelligence applications in clinical microbiology.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Development and evaluation of an artificial intelligence for bacterial growth monitoring in clinical bacteriology.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Accuracy of an AI-based automated plate reading mobile application for the identification of clinical mastitis-causing pathogens in chromogenic culture media.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The Use of Machine Learning for Image Analysis Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Microbiology.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2023Review
- Comparison of the APAS Independence Automated Plate Reader System with the Manual Standard of Care for Processing Urine Culture Specimens.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Microbiology 2.0-A "behind the scenes" consideration for artificial intelligence applications for interpretive culture plate reading in routine diagnostic laboratories.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Comparison of an Automated Plate Assessment System (APAS Independence) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Manual Plate Reading of Methicillin-Resistant and Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus CHROMagar Surveillance Cultures.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- Digital microbiology.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2020Review
- Consolidation of Clinical Microbiology Laboratories and Introduction of Transformative Technologies.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2020Review
- Laboratory Automation in Clinical Microbiology.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Total Laboratory Automation in Clinical Microbiology: a Micro-Comic Strip.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe application of image analysis technologies for the interpretation of microbiological cultures is evolving rapidly. The primary aim of this study was to establish whether the image analysis system named Automated Plate Assessment System (APAS; LBT Innovations Ltd., Australia) could be applied to screen urine cultures. A secondary aim was to evaluate differences between traditional plate reading (TPR) and the reading of cultures from images, or digital plate reading (DPR).
methodsA total of 9,224 urine samples submitted for culture to three clinical laboratories, two in Australia and one in the USA, were included in the study. Cultures were prepared on sheep blood and MacConkey agar plates and read by panels of three microbiologists. The plates were then presented to APAS for image capture and analysis, and the images and results were stored for later review.
resultsImage analysis of cultures using APAS produced a diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of 99.0% and 84.5%, respectively. Colonies were detected by APAS on 99.0% of blood agar plates with growth and on 99.5% of MacConkey agar plates. DPR agreed with TPR for colony enumeration on 92.1% of the plates, with a sensitivity of 90.8% and specificity of 92.8% for case designation. However, several differences in the classification of colony morphologies using DPR were identified.
conclusionsAPAS was shown to be a reliable screening system for urine cultures. The study also showed acceptable concordance between DPR and TPR for colony detection, enumeration, and case designation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.