MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092007410 · doi:10.1128/jcm.02877-12

CHROMagar Orientation Medium Reduces Urine Culture Workload

2013· article· en· W2092007410 on OpenAlexaff
Kanchana Manickam, James A. Karlowsky, Heather J. Adam, Philippe Lagacé‐Wiens, Assunta Rendina, Paulette Pang, Brenda-Lee Murray, Michelle J. Alfa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaShared Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadUrineTurnaround timeConfidence intervalMedicineComputer scienceInternal medicineOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microbiology laboratories continually strive to streamline and improve their urine culture algorithms because of the high volumes of urine specimens they receive and the modest numbers of those specimens that are ultimately considered clinically significant. In the current study, we quantitatively measured the impact of the introduction of CHROMagar Orientation (CO) medium into routine use in two hospital laboratories and compared it to conventional culture on blood and MacConkey agars. Based on data extracted from our Laboratory Information System from 2006 to 2011, the use of CO medium resulted in a 28% reduction in workload for additional procedures such as Gram stains, subcultures, identification panels, agglutination tests, and biochemical tests. The average number of workload units (one workload unit equals 1 min of hands-on labor) per urine specimen was significantly reduced (P < 0.0001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5326 to 1.047) from 2.67 in 2006 (preimplementation of CO medium) to 1.88 in 2011 (postimplementation of CO medium). We conclude that the use of CO medium streamlined the urine culture process and increased bench throughput by reducing both workload and turnaround time in our laboratories.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFrench-language works237,207