659. Evaluation of Four Chromogenic Agars for Urine Culture Including Time and Cost Savings Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background With a volume of approximately 5000 urine culture specimens per month in our tertiary-care university center hospital’s microbiology laboratory, we wanted to evaluate methods aiming to improve workflow and performance while reducing turnaround time and potentially overall cost. Methods 310 urine culture specimens as well as selected less frequent pathogens (A. urinae - 26 strains, C. urealyticum - 4 strains) were plated on four chromogenic agars in parallel with standard protocol MacConkey (MAC) and blood agar (BA). Chromogenic agars evaluated were: UriSelectTM 4 (Bio-Rad), CHROMID® CPS® Elite (bioMérieux), BrillanceTM UTI ClarityTM agar Biplate (Oxoid) and BDTM CHROMagarTM Orientation (BD). Primary outcome was overall growth performance for frequent pathogens and for gram positives, where chromogenic agars were previously reported to underperform.The number of additional tests needed and the appreciation of different media by laboratory personnel were also assessed. A sub-analysis measured the total time required to plate and to read 50 consecutive specimens comparatively for the 4 chromogenic agars and for MAC/BA. Results Global performance was 90% for Uriselect, 88% for ChromID, 89% for Chromagar and 81% for Brillance compared to 84% for standard method. ChromID and Brillance supported the growth of more A. urinae and C. urealyticum than the other 2 chromogenic agars. All monoplate chromogenic agars were appreciated equally by technologists. In addition, for all chromogenic agars, working time was reduced by half as compared to MAC/BA. We estimated a time economy of approximately 80 hours per month in our laboratory, translating in a net annual economy. Conclusion All 4 chromogenic medias evaluated in our study had an acceptable performance, with specific strengths and weaknesses for each one. The choice of ChromID CPS Elite (bioMérieux) for our center was based on pre-established criteria including performance for more fastidious gram positives, best time and cost economy, and compatibility with current identification method and susceptibility testing platform. However, since the 4 chromogenic agars have been adequately verified in our laboratory, we consider that they could be interchangeable if needed. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".