ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2024
Performance evaluation of machine-assisted interpretation of Gram stains from positive blood cultures.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Using Direct Centrifugation Significantly Reduces Turnaround Time While Maintaining High Diagnostic Accuracy in Bloodstream Infections.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of Gram stain interpretation accuracy between a computer-aided diagnosis app and microbiology specialists in blood culture samples.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Observational
- From Gram Stain to Decision Support: Performance of Multimodal Large Language Models in Blood Culture Microscopy.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Gram staining decipherment using an artificial intelligence-powered smartphone-based application.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Observational
- Digital holographic microscopy: use of artificial intelligence to enable rapid blood culture Gram stain digitization and interpretation.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- A comparison of routine blood culture methods and multiplex quantitative PCR for detecting pathogens in simulated polymicrobial blood cultures.Journal of medical microbiology · 2026Article
- An annotated dataset of Gram stains from positive blood cultures.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Fast-tracking fungal detection: a rapid flow cytometric method for the detection of yeasts in blood cultures.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Evolving microbiology laboratories: mastering automated culture-based processes and molecular assays, an institutional experience.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Proceedings of the Clinical Microbiology Open 2024: artificial intelligence applications in clinical microbiology.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- A novel framework for the automated characterization of Gram-stained blood culture slides using a large-scale vision transformer.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Virtual Gram staining of label-free bacteria using dark-field microscopy and deep learning.Science advances · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.