Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38506525›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2024

Performance evaluation of machine-assisted interpretation of Gram stains from positive blood cultures.

Christian Walter, Christoph Weissert, Eve Gizewski, Irene Burckhardt, Heiko Mannsperger, Siegfried Hänselmann, Winfried Busch, Stefan Zimmermann, Oliver Nolte

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Christian WalterDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Medical Faculty Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0006-7982-3430
Christoph WeissertDivision of Human Microbiology, Centre for Laboratory Medicine, St. Gall, Switzerland.
Eve GizewskiMetaSystems Hard & Software GmbH, Altlussheim, Germany.
Irene BurckhardtDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Medical Faculty Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heiko MannspergerMetaSystems Hard & Software GmbH, Altlussheim, Germany.
Siegfried HänselmannMetaSystems Hard & Software GmbH, Altlussheim, Germany.
Winfried BuschMetaSystems Hard & Software GmbH, Altlussheim, Germany.
Stefan Zimmermann *Department of Infectious Diseases, Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Medical Faculty Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5601-7934
Oliver Nolte *Division of Human Microbiology, Centre for Laboratory Medicine, St. Gall, Switzerland.
Software (Germany) · DEHeidelberg University · DEUniversity of St.Gallen · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Manual microscopy of Gram stains from positive blood cultures (PBCs) is crucial for diagnosing bloodstream infections but remains labor intensive, time consuming, and subjective. This study aimed to evaluate a scan and analysis system that combines fully automated digital microscopy with deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to assist the interpretation of Gram stains from PBCs for routine laboratory use. The CNN was trained to classify images of Gram stains based on staining and morphology into seven different classes: background/false-positive, Gram-positive cocci in clusters (GPCCL), Gram-positive cocci in pairs (GPCP), Gram-positive cocci in chains (GPCC), rod-shaped bacilli (RSB), yeasts, and polymicrobial specimens. A total of 1,555 Gram-stained slides of PBCs were scanned, pre-classified, and reviewed by medical professionals. The results of assisted Gram stain interpretation were compared to those of manual microscopy and cultural species identification by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). The comparison of assisted Gram stain interpretation and manual microscopy yielded positive/negative percent agreement values of 95.8%/98.0% (GPCCL), 87.6%/99.3% (GPCP/GPCC), 97.4%/97.8% (RSB), 83.3%/99.3% (yeasts), and 87.0%/98.5% (negative/false positive). The assisted Gram stain interpretation, when compared to MALDI-TOF MS species identification, also yielded similar results. During the analytical performance study, assisted interpretation showed excellent reproducibility and repeatability. Any microorganism in PBCs should be detectable at the determined limit of detection of 10

Indexed as

BacillusGentian VioletPhenazinesSepsisBacillotaBlood CultureHumansNeural Networks, ComputerReproducibility of ResultsSpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationYeastsGentian VioletGram's stainPhenazinesartificial intelligenceautomated microscopyautomationblood culturebloodstream infectionsdeep learningdigitizationGram stainmachine learningneural networks

Identifiers

PMID38506525
PMCPMC11005413
OpenAlexW4392997315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.