A-266 Comparative Evaluation of Bacteriostatic Efficacy in Preserved Room-Temperature vs. Unpreserved Refrigerated Urine Containers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are common bacterial infections, diagnosed through urine culture, which typically requires refrigerated storage to prevent bacterial overgrowth. Alternatively, collection and preservative devices such as the novel UriSponge (Copan Diagnostics, Murrieta, California) are used to maintain specimen integrity. This study evaluates the bacteriostatic efficacy of the newly reformulated UriSponge in preserving urine samples at room-temperature and during delayed processing conditions. No studies currently exist that demonstrate its effectiveness in a clinical setting. Methods Midstream urine samples were collected and aliquoted at a clinic, then transported to the testing laboratory to facilitate assessment of refrigerated and UriSponge-preserved conditions. Aliquots were stored refrigerated (unpreserved) and at room temperature (UriSponge-preserved) until plating. Samples were plated on Brilliance UTI Clarity agar (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) at ∼11 and ∼34 hours post-collection. A total of 451 specimens were assessed using WASPLab and PhenoMATRIX. Cultures were reviewed for agreement across different sample storage conditions. Results UriSponge-stored aliquots demonstrated strong agreement with unpreserved urine aliquots. Categorical interpretations of no growth (NG), non-significant growth (NSG), significant growth (SG), and mixed growth (MG) were assigned. Categories of NG, NSG, and MG were considered clinically insignificant while SG was considered clinically significant. Aliquots plated ∼11 hours post-collection demonstrated 95% clinical categorical agreement. Aliquots plated ∼34 hours post-collection demonstrated 90% clinical categorical agreement. A 2% and 4% increase in organism recovery was observed in 34-hour non-preserved and preserved cultures, respectively, compared to 11 hours, with Enterococcus sp. being the most frequently recovered organism in both conditions. Loss of significant organisms occurred in 2% and 4% of non-preserved and preserved cultures, respectively, with Lactobacillus sp. showing the most decreased recovery in extended storage, regardless of preservative use. Conclusion The reformulated UriSponge device demonstrated strong bacteriostatic effectiveness in preserving urine samples collected at the clinic site and stored at room temperature, with high clinical categorical agreement when compared to refrigerated, unpreserved samples. The findings suggest that UriSponge is a reliable option for collecting and maintaining sample integrity, ensuring accurate uropathogen recovery in cases where delays in specimen processing occur.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".