ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2024
Development and evaluation of an artificial intelligence for bacterial growth monitoring in clinical bacteriology.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of an AI-Assisted Colony Counting System Across Multiple Culture Media Using Standardized Pure Culture Plates.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Evolving microbiology laboratories: mastering automated culture-based processes and molecular assays, an institutional experience.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Application of artificial intelligence in geriatric infection: recent advances and prospects.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Discovery and cultivation of prokaryotic taxa in the age of metagenomics and artificial intelligence.The ISME journal · 2025Article
- Aptamer-functionalized graphene quantum dots combined with artificial intelligence detect bacteria for urinary tract infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Improving the odds: Artificial intelligence and the great plate count anomaly.Microbial biotechnology · 2024Article
- Role of artificial intelligence in bacterial diagnostics and surveillance of anti-microbial resistance.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In clinical bacteriology laboratories, reading and processing of sterile plates remain a significant part of the routine workload (30%-40% of the plates). Here, an algorithm was developed for bacterial growth detection starting with any type of specimens and using the most common media in bacteriology. The growth prediction performance of the algorithm for automatic processing of sterile plates was evaluated not only at 18-24 h and 48 h but also at earlier timepoints toward the development of an early growth monitoring system. A total of 3,844 plates inoculated with representative clinical specimens were used. The plates were imaged 15 times, and two different microbiologists read the images randomly and independently, creating 99,944 human ground truths. The algorithm was able, at 48 h, to discriminate growth from no growth with a sensitivity of 99.80% (five false-negative [FN] plates out of 3,844) and a specificity of 91.97%. At 24 h, sensitivity and specificity reached 99.08% and 93.37%, respectively. Interestingly, during human truth reading, growth was reported as early as 4 h, while at 6 h, half of the positive plates were already showing some growth. In this context, automated early growth monitoring in case of normally sterile samples is envisioned to provide added value to the microbiologists, enabling them to prioritize reading and to communicate early detection of bacterial growth to the clinicians.
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.