Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41854436›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2026

Why are we doing this alone? A collaborative framework for LDT development and validation.

James E Kirby, Ramy Arnaout

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

James E Kirby *Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0392-4500
Ramy Arnaout *Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6955-9310

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) play a critical role in meeting unmet diagnostic needs, particularly for rare infections and high-acuity or immunocompromised patient populations. However, current US regulatory and reimbursement frameworks have constrained innovation and delayed implementation of many essential laboratory diagnostic tests. Here, we propose a pragmatic, collaborative model focusing on infectious disease molecular diagnostics that maintains analytical rigor while allowing clinical validity to be supported by evidence from the medical literature and clinical judgment. To address the resource constraints faced by hospital laboratories, we envision a voluntary, national repository where laboratories and manufacturers contribute standardized analytical and, where appropriate, clinical validation data for both newly developed and modified Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared assays. Data elements such as accuracy, limit of detection, analytical measurement range, analytical specificity, and inclusivity compared with reference determinations would be aggregated within groups representing technically identical assays, enabling cumulative validation and shared use of high-quality evidence. By leveraging these shared data sets, hospital laboratories could implement LDTs in-house with minimal redundant validation, enabling broader access to testing near the point of patient care and faster turnaround times. Manufacturers could use the same data to support applications for expanded intended use of existing FDA-cleared and -approved tests. This framework would strengthen hospital laboratory diagnostic capacity, accelerate test implementation, and improve patient outcomes and healthcare system efficiency.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesDiagnostic Tests, RoutineMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesHumansReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administrationanalytical validationclinical microbiologylaboratory developed testLDTmolecular diagnosticsregulationvalidationverification

Identifiers

PMID41854436
PMCPMC13059807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.