MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460503493 · doi:10.1128/jcm.01040-16

Automatic Digital Analysis of Chromogenic Media for Vancomycin-Resistant-Enterococcus Screens Using Copan WASPLab

2016· article· en· W2460503493 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew L. Faron, Blake W. Buchan, Christopher Coon, Theo Liebregts, Anita van Bree, A Jansz, Geneviève Soucy, John Korver, Nathan A. Ledeboer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine ProgramHamilton Health SciencesUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromogenicEnterococcusVancomycinMicrobiologyMedicineBiologyBacteriaChemistryAntibioticsChromatographyStaphylococcus aureus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are an important cause of health care-acquired infections (HAIs). Studies have shown that active surveillance of high-risk patients for VRE colonization can aid in reducing HAIs; however, these screens generate a significant cost to the laboratory and health care system. Digital imaging capable of differentiating negative and "nonnegative" chromogenic agar can reduce the labor cost of these screens and potentially improve patient care. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the WASPLab Chromogenic Detection Module (CDM) (Copan, Brescia, Italy) software to analyze VRE chromogenic agar and compared the results to technologist plate reading. Specimens collected at 3 laboratories were cultured using the WASPLab CDM and plated to each site's standard-of-care chromogenic media, which included Colorex VRE (BioMed Diagnostics, White City, OR) or Oxoid VRE (Oxoid, Basingstoke, United Kingdom). Digital images were scored using the CDM software after 24 or 40 h of growth, and all manual reading was performed using digital images on a high-definition (HD) monitor. In total, 104,730 specimens were enrolled and automation agreed with manual analysis for 90.1% of all specimens tested, with sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 89.5%, respectively. Automation results were discordant for 10,348 specimens, and all discordant images were reviewed by a laboratory supervisor or director. After a second review, 499 specimens were identified as representing missed positive cultures falsely called negative by the technologist, 1,616 were identified as containing borderline color results (negative result but with no package insert color visible), and 8,234 specimens were identified as containing colorimetric pigmentation due to residual matrix from the specimen or yeast (Candida). Overall, the CDM was accurate at identifying negative VRE plates, which comprised 84% (87,973) of the specimens in this study.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations61
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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