Fig. 1: Comparison of conventional culture-based ID and culture-free sample-to-result ID methods. | Nature Communications

Fig. 1: Comparison of conventional culture-based ID and culture-free sample-to-result ID methods.

From: Rapid culture-free diagnosis of clinical pathogens via integrated microfluidic-Raman micro-spectroscopy

Fig. 1: Comparison of conventional culture-based ID and culture-free sample-to-result ID methods.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

a Conventional culture-based approach involves sample collection, seeding in culture media, incubation (24-48 hours for fast-growing bacteria, or several days for slow growers), and final identification using MALDI-TOF MS. b The rapid sample-to-result ID method isolates pathogens directly from the clinical sample using the microfluidic enrichment system (denoted as AutoEnricher), followed by single-cell Raman spectroscopic measurement to identify pathogens within 20 min (complete workflow and timeline in Supplementary Fig. S1). c A clinical isolate database containing 36 species and 342 clinical isolates across Gram-negative (167 isolates, 50,100 spectra), Gram-positive (81 isolates, 24,300 spectra), and fungi (94 isolates, 28,200 spectra) was used to train a ResNet convolutional neural network model. d Clinical validation using the enrichment system and single-cell Raman identification method. The study involves 305 patients with various sample types (urine, blood, bile, cerebrospinal fluid, etc.). Samples were processed and classified by AutoEnricher as positive or negative for infection, and isolated pathogens were identified using the 1D ResNet algorithm. Created in BioRender. Xu, J. (https://BioRender.com/dmb6g5f).

Back to article page