Cited by 44Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization

Benefits Derived from Full Laboratory Automation in Microbiology: a Tale of Four Laboratories

Open access
Culbreath, Karissa, Piwonka, Heather, Korver, John, Noorbakhsh, Mir·2021·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Automation in clinical microbiology is starting to become more commonplace and reportedly offers several advantages over the manual laboratory. Most studies have reported on the rapid turnaround times for culture results, including times for identification of pathogens and their respective antimicrobial susceptibilities, but few have studied the benefits from a laboratory efficiency point of view.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.01969-20

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Algorithm-assisted culture interpretation accelerates reporting and reduces the proportion of cultures requiring extended review.

    “These observations are consistent with prior studies demonstrating that algorithm-assisted culture interpretation (by Culbreath et al.) accelerates reporting and reduces the proportion of cultures requiring extended review (1).”

    From Improving turnaround times with artificial intelligence in microbiology (2026) · cites this paper as [1]

    The Results (TriCore Reference Laboratories) report faster reporting after algorithm-assisted automation: median turnaround time fell to 21 hours, and fewer cultures took over 48 hours to reach a final report. But the same section says the proportion requiring additional laboratory workup remained about 40% across stages (39% with algorithm-assisted automation). The paper supports faster reporting, not a reduced proportion requiring additional workup. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Automated technologies improve efficiency compared to manual methods across laboratories of varying size and patient acuity.

    “Automated technologies improve efficiency compared to manual methods across laboratories of varying size and patient acuity (1).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [9]Keyak C. 2019. Utilizing digital imaging to determine optimal incubation times for routine urine cultures. Med Lab Observ 51(10): 40– 44. https://www.mlo-online.com/diagnostics/microbiology/article/21106580/utilizing-digital-imaging-to-determine-optimal-incubation-times-for-routine-urine-cultures.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Culbreath, K., Piwonka, H., Korver, J., & Noorbakhsh, M.
Affiliations
  • Department of Infectious Disease, TriCore Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
  • Willis-Knighton Cancer Center (US)
  • Hamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine Program (CA)
  • Sutter Health (US)
Corresponding author
Culbreath, Karissa
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2021-02-18
Volume
59
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W3109871469
Cited by
44
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Microbiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNM’s Digital Repository (University of New Mexico) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Keywords
laboratory automation, clinical microbiology laboratory, laboratory efficiency, full-time equivalents, staff reallocation, laboratory productivity, cost avoidance, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, pathogen identification
MeSH terms
Automation, Humans, Laboratories, North America, Automation, Laboratory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review