MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389032221 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofad500.653

584. Microbiological Outcomes of Culture-Negative Blood Specimens Using 16s rRNA Broad-Range PCR Sequencing: a Retrospective Study in a Canadian Province from 2018 to 2022

2023· article· en· W4389032221 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anthony Lieu, Luke B. Harrison, Josée Harel, Matthew P. Cheng, Marc-Christian Domingo

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanger sequencing16S ribosomal RNABlood cultureMedicineFastidious organismPolymerase chain reactionDNA sequencingClinical microbiologyGram-positive bacterial infectionsPathologyInternal medicineBiologyMicrobiologyGeneticsGeneBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Broad-range bacterial PCR sequencing (BRBPS) has emerged as a novel tool to detect fastidious organisms. While its utility has been characterized in different specimen types, its role in culture-negative blood specimens remains poorly understood. Methods We reviewed all clinical specimens sent for culture-negative blood BRBPS (blood, serum and blood culture bottles) to the Laboratoire de santé publique du Québec, the reference laboratory for a large Canadian province, from May 2018 to November 2022. Sanger sequencing of the amplified 16s rRNA gene was performed in all PCR-positive specimens. Data were extracted from the laboratory information system, and the analysis was restricted to the first specimen per patient. Microbiological outcomes were categorized as interpretable sequence, uninterpretable sequence, or negative PCR result. Interpretable sequences were identified and then classified based on the National Healthcare Safety Network database (NHSN; Table 1) and microbiological characteristics.Table 1.Definitions of National Health Safety Network (NHSN) Classification and Examples Results A total of 1199 blood specimens were analyzed using BRBPS from 852 unique patients. Of these, there was no PCR amplification in 152, amplification with uninterpretable sequences in 445 and an interpretable sequence in 255 specimens (Figure 1). Blood specimens received at room temperature, in blood culture bottles, or with positive gram stain were more likely to yield interpretable sequences (Table 2). We identified 174 patients with BRBPS results suggestive of organisms associated with mucosal barrier injury (n=89) or possible pathogens (n=85), summarized in Figure 2. In contrast, 75 patients had results suggestive of contamination from common commensal organisms (n=44) or taxa not in the NSHN database (n=31).Figure 1.Flowchart of the analysis from primary specimens to those specimens with successful amplification of 16s rRNA Classification of interpretable sequences using the National Healthcare Safety Network database classification of microorganisms.Table 2.Characteristics of BRBPS of the 16s rRNA on Culture-Negative Blood SpecimensFigure 2.Tree Map of Mucosal Barrier Injury Organisms and Possible Pathogens by Genera Mucosal barrier injury (A) and possible pathogens (B) are categorized based on the National Healthcare Safety Network database. Microorganisms are colour classified based on microbiological characteristics. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate the potential utility of BRBPS in blood specimens from culture-negative patients, particularly infectious syndromes caused by fastidious gram-negative bacteria associated with animal or arthropod exposures or anaerobic bacteria. However, the frequent recovery of commensal and environmental organisms argues for careful and judicious use. Additional technical optimization is likely required to improve diagnostic yield, particularly with mixed sequences. Disclosures Matthew Cheng, MD, Amplyx Pharmaceuticals: Grant/Research Support|AstraZeneca: Advisor/Consultant|AstraZeneca: Honoraria|Cidara Therapeutics: Grant/Research Support|GEn1E lifesciences: Advisor/Consultant|GEn1E lifesciences: Stocks/Bonds|Kanvas Biosciences, Inc.: Board Member|Kanvas Biosciences, Inc.: Pending patents|Kanvas Biosciences, Inc.: Ownership Interest|Merck: Honoraria|nomic bio: Advisor/Consultant|nomic bio: Stocks/Bonds|Pfizer: Honoraria|Scynexis Inc.: Grant/Research Support|Takeda: Advisor/Consultant|Takeda: Honoraria

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFrench-language works237,207