ライフサイエンスコーパス: Gram stain

1 ty of 93.7% compared to the Nugent criteria (Gram stain).

2 cted female partner had an evaluable vaginal Gram stain.

3 eumonia, and 94% showed abundant bacteria on Gram stain.

4 cimens demonstrating yeast-like organisms by Gram stain.

5 or = 2 mL during 4 hrs) with organism(s) on Gram stain.

6 exhibited easily recognizable morphology on Gram stain.

7 <19.8 or bacterial vaginosis as assessed by Gram stain.

8 esence of intracellular organisms (ICO), and Gram stain.

9 ed to specimens that appeared unimicrobic on Gram stain.

10 , PPV and NPVs, and accuracy than culture to Gram stain.

11 clear cells per high-power field on urethral Gram stain.

12 hematoxylin-eosin, periodic acid-Schiff, and Gram stain.

13 l detection of these bacteria required urine Gram stains.

14 d cultures, 63 of whom had positive valvular Gram stains.

15 ae using NAATs and bacterial vaginosis using Gram stains.

16 exhibiting Gram-positive cocci upon initial Gram staining.

17 microbiological methods, such as culture and gram staining.

18 urease, catalase, and oxidase reactions and Gram staining.

19 ent infections without organisms detected by Gram staining.

20 onial morphology on CCFA, or morphology upon Gram staining.

21 acity could be observed visually, only after Gram staining.

22 blood culture samples positive for fungi by Gram staining.

23 r cells (PMNL) per high-power field (hpf) on Gram stain (2050 vs. 320 ifu), and diagnoses of mucopuru

24 molecular result than those with a negative Gram stain (95% confidence interval for odds ratio, 5.2-

25 MRSA on TSA II was confirmed by Gram staining, a coagulase test, and a cefoxitin disk te

26 When the LFA was paired with Gram staining, a sensitivity of 100% was achieved after

27 Gram staining, acid-fast staining, and lactic acid, cryp

28 CSF Gram staining, acid-fast staining, cryptococcal antigen,

29 Test of cure by clinical criteria and Gram stain analysis and repeated polymerase chain reacti

30 sets, enhancing the speed and reliability of Gram stain analysis.

31 The gram stain and acridine-orange leucocyte cytospin test (

32 We assessed the gram stain and AOLC test in suspected cases of catheter-

33 The gram stain and AOLC test is a simple, and rapid method f

34 The sensitivity of the gram stain and AOLC test was 96% and the specificity was

35 Therefore, we compared the Gram stain and culture results for 361 consecutive ETA s

36 nd clinical presentation of endophthalmitis, gram stain and culture results of intraocular fluid, tim

37 he likelihood of septic arthritis before the Gram stain and culture test results are known.

38 tomography-guided fine-needle aspiration for Gram stain and cultures is unnecessary in the majority o

39 rmation beyond that derived from the initial Gram stain and in less time than phenotypic culture-base

40 between bacterial vaginosis (BV) assessed by Gram stain and incident trichomonal, gonococcal, and/or

41 swabs were obtained from female partners for Gram stain and male partners were tested for HIV-1.

42 esting fair concordance between organisms on Gram stain and recovery by culture.

43 edictive value that is not enhanced by urine Gram stain and that antibiotic selection did not vary ba

44 nitiation and 90 days thereafter for vaginal Gram staining and 16S rRNA gene sequencing.

45 m direct and extracted culture methods using Gram staining and a GAS-specific latex agglutination tes

46 Gram staining and fluorescence in situ hybridization ide

47 lection of two corneal scrapes, one used for Gram staining and the other transported in BHI followed

48 al isolation and confirmation was done using Gram-staining and biochemical tests.

49 ndpoints, evaluated every 2 months, were BV (Gram stain) and VVC (positive wet mount and culture).

50 otassium hydroxide with calcofluor white and Gram stains) and culture examination (5% sheep blood aga

51 4.5 (IQR, 1.5-10.7) hours from detection to Gram stain, and 30.9 (IQR, 22.0-41.9) hours from detecti

52 re known to alter synovial fluid cell count, Gram stain, and culture results and are typically postpo

53 rum ascites albumin gradient and cell count, Gram stain, and culture.

54 cteria by culture, 16S rRNA gene sequencing, Gram stain, and fluorescence in situ hybridization.

55 e stained with hematoxylin and eosin, tissue gram stain, and immunostains for von Willebrand factor (

56 re examined by traditional methods (culture, Gram stain, and latex agglutination for bacterial antige

57 Results were compared to culture, Gram stain, and PCR results.

58 lmonary secretions defined by neutrophils on Gram stain, and positive cultures for pathogenic organis

59 r all processes, including specimen receipt, Gram staining, and culture reporting.

60 ss the status of patients for whom cultures, Gram stains, and clinical evaluations for meningococcal

61 Gram stain as well as multiple cultures of her ascites f

62 e original resistant organism on culture and Gram stain at end of treatment in 14 out of 16 patients

63 lture devices and were positive for yeast by Gram stain at seven study sites.

64 Compared to Gram stain, BAC One demonstrated sensitivity and specifi

65 Gram staining, bright-field microscopy, hematoxylin and

66 were specimens with no organisms reported on Gram stain but significant growth on culture, while 42%

67 gesting that VAP is unlikely with a negative Gram stain but the positive predictive value of Gram sta

68 eria (never seen before) to rapidly generate Gram staining, bypassing several chemical steps involved

69 Because the Gram stain can be confusing, abbreviated identification

70 Providing more detailed information than the Gram stain can impart, and in less time than subculturin

71 t sensitivity to TNF-alpha, and possibly the Gram stain classification.

72 ential of large-scale transformer models for Gram stain classification.

73 Based on gram staining, colony characteristics, biochemical react

74 or patients with Gram-negative rods on urine Gram stain compared to those with Gram-positive cocci (P

75 iew was performed to collect all culture and Gram stain components, as well as antibiotic use directe

76 Thus, microscopic examination of Gram-stained, concentrated CSF is highly sensitive and s

77 organisms that were further demonstrated by Gram stain confirming the diagnosis of Whipple's disease

78 gh negative predictive value, but a positive Gram stain correlated poorly with organisms recovered in

79 ted they do not reject TA specimens based on Gram stain criteria, and 44% of labs do not require that

80 all of the following criteria: positive CSF Gram stain, CSF absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of at le

81 We present a case of mastoiditis where Gram stain, culture, and molecular diagnosis were nondia

82 of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) often includes Gram stain, culture, antigen detection, and molecular me

83 Diagnostic methods included Gram stain, culture, immunofluorescence, and PCR testing

84 athogen at the early infection stage rely on Gram stains, cultures, Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay

85 We also introduce a large Gram stain data set from Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Cen

86 Application of Evolink on flagella and gram-staining datasets revealed findings that are consis

87 antibiotic prescribing after availability of Gram stain, dDD, and AST results.

88 ive blood cultures (Virtuo; bioMerieux) were Gram stained, diluted 1:1,000 in Pluronic water, inocula

89 In conclusion, the clinical utility of urine Gram stain does not warrant the time or cost it requires

90 ield images of unstained bacteria into their Gram-stained equivalents matching bright-field image con

91 The Gram stain error rate also varied between sites, ranging

92 ajor tertiary medical care centers evaluated Gram stain error rates across all nonblood specimen type

93 icrobiologists respond to the call to reduce Gram stain error rates?

94 egnant women aged 18 to 45 with clinical and Gram stain evidence of BV were randomized to receive int

95 We reviewed the results of microscopic Gram stain examination and routine culture for 2,635 cer

96 otoxin in BAL fluid > 5 EU/ml is superior to Gram stain examination for the rapid identification of p

97 Gram stain examination of BAL fluid for the presence of

98 ion between culture results and quantitative Gram stain examination was also poor.

99 abbing and compared the cellular content and Gram stain failure rate.

100 labs do not require that a minimum number of Gram stain fields be reviewed prior to reporting results

101 Gram staining followed by Nugent scoring based on bacter

102 Negative predictive value of Gram stain for a VAP prevalence of 20%-30% was 91%, sugg

103 nt SmartProbes offer a comparative method to Gram stain for delineating gram-positive or gram-negativ

104 meta-analysis examining respiratory specimen Gram stain for diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumo

105 In 21 studies, pooled sensitivity of Gram stain for VAP was 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI

106 cton Dickinson [BD], Sparks, MD) positive by gram stain for yeast was subcultured to CHROMagar Candid

107 ed for gram-negative bacilli and examined by Gram staining for both sputum adequacy (using the qualit

108 when only one of two cultures is positive by Gram staining for staphylococci.

109 Gram stains from either heat- or methanol-fixed slides s

110 The Gram stain, genus, and species were accurately predicted

111 Specimens with a positive Gram stain had 12 times greater odds of having a positiv

112 associated pneumonia, absence of bacteria on Gram stain had a high negative predictive value, but a p

113 Overall, Gram stain had a sensitivity of 54% and a specificity of

114 Gram staining has been a frequently used staining protoc

115 lture bottles in which yeast was observed by Gram staining (herein referred to as yeast-positive bloo

116 Analyses stratified by sex or Gram-stain identification of pathogen class or restricte

117 ues for bacteria including quantitative PCR, Gram staining, immunofluorescence and in situ hybridizat

118 -TOF could become a vital second step beside Gram stain in guiding the empirical treatment of patient

119 No organisms were seen by Gram staining in 225 (62%) of the ETAs.

120 th comprehensive bacteriology is superior to Gram staining in identifying pathogens in CF sputum.

121 erent bacteria in each case was performed by Gram staining, in situ hybridization using fluorescence-

122 h the FA and FN media and are preferable for Gram stain interpretation as well.

123 To address Gram stain interpretation proficiency in a satellite/cen

124 is a better indicator of the technologist's Gram stain interpretation proficiency.

125 ll 3 study sites preferred the new media for Gram stain interpretation.

126 ior to lumbar puncture are excluded, the CSF Gram stain is 92% sensitive.

127 BV microbiota as gauged by Gram stain is associated with a significantly elevated r

128 The Gram stain is one of the most commonly performed tests i

129 of our findings, the absence of organisms on Gram staining is a useful criterion for rejecting ETAs f

130 Standardized monitoring of Gram stains is an essential quality control tool for lab

131 5.9%, 97.8%, and 100% on species, genus, and Gram-stain level, respectively.

132 Incorrectly interpreted Gram stains may adversely impact patient care, and yet t

133 Gram stain microscopy and culture results were compared

134 results were compared with those obtained by gram-stain microscopy, culture, and gel electrophoresis

135 After a one-time training, the virtual Gram staining model processes an axial stack of dark-fie

136 I were confirmed as Staphylococcus aureus by Gram stain morphology and a coagulase test.

137 A novel Gram-stain negative, aerobic, halotolerant, motile, rod-

138 degree of bactericidal activity toward both Gram stain-negative Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Gram stai

139 Using Nugent-scored Gram stain (NS) as the reference standard, we evaluated

140 icrobiota assessments at all visits included Gram stain Nugent scoring and 16S rRNA gene qPCR and HiS

141 ria) and the interpretation of vaginal-fluid Gram stains (Nugent criteria).

142 A Gram stain of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid was not

143 r to identify Gram-positive cocci noted on a Gram stain of CSF from a previously healthy 26-year-old

144 are unit time course, infectious status, and Gram stain of infecting organism.

145 Gram stain of the BALF was positive in 18 cases.

146 l mice, bacterial were readily detectable by Gram stain of the liver but were undetectable in the VV-

147 On Gram stain of urethral exudates, Nm can be misidentified

148 based on clinical Amsel criteria and direct Gram stain of vaginal secretions.

149 The results of Gram staining of a vaginal smear were consistent with BV

150 These organisms can be seen upon Gram staining of clinical specimens or can be isolated a

151 The phenotype-based scheme included Gram staining of growth on BEAA and subculture of cocci

152 Here, we introduce virtual Gram staining of label-free bacteria using a trained neu

153 of a composite reference standard comprising Gram staining of sputum samples and sputum/blood culture

154 hotypes per high-power field, as detected by Gram staining of vaginal swab specimens.

155 Gram stains of 87 different clinical samples were prepar

156 Gram staining offered rapid validation of enhanced bindi

157 We demonstrated the success of virtual Gram staining on label-free bacteria samples containing

158 rosequencing compared to 27.9 +/- 13.6 h for Gram stain or 81.6 +/- 24.0 h for phenotypic identificat

159 nduced sputum, whereas the results of either Gram stain or culture of sputum were positive in 105 of

160 JSA) is definitively diagnosed by a positive Gram stain or culture, along with supportive clinical fi

161 r high-power microscopic field on a cervical Gram stain or yellow mucopus on an endocervical swab.

162 ulture, induced good-quality sputum culture, Gram stain, or urinary Binax demonstrated pneumococci.

163 al-time notification following blood culture Gram stain, organism identification, and antimicrobial s

164 and bacteria were identified on the basis of Gram stain, oxidase, and biochemical reactions.

165 es as the structure of the cell envelope and Gram-staining pattern.

166 nificant variability between laboratories in Gram stain performance and affirm the need for ongoing q

167 t for those who want to evaluate and improve Gram stain performance.

168 ted UTI who had urine culture, UA, and urine Gram stain performed from a single urine specimen.

169 leukocytes per high-power field on urethral Gram stain plus either visible urethral discharge or ure

170 ases had >=5 polymorphonuclear leukocytes on Gram stain plus symptoms or discharge; controls had <5 P

171 Cases had 5 polymorphonuclear leukocytes on Gram stain plus symptoms or discharge; controls had <5 P

172 ics warrant consideration in patients with a Gram stain positive for organisms, in cases suspicious f

173 onal Space Station (ISS) in April 2018, four Gram-stain positive bacterial strains, designated as F6_

174 am stain-negative Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Gram stain-positive Staphylococcus aureus bacteria, indu

175 g this mission series, six unique strains of Gram-stain-positive bacteria, including two spore-formin

176 In quality assurance program 2, clinical Gram stains prepared and read by the satellite laborator

177 staining framework bypasses the traditional Gram staining protocol and its challenges, including sta

178 for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections, Gram stains provide critical early data to inform patien

179 The Gram stain provides the first clue as to the etiology of

180 Gram staining quickly eliminated gram-positive bacilli f

181 sification scheme directly correlated to the Gram stain reaction in microorganism taxonomy.

182 dard for diagnosis, but the utility of urine Gram stain relative to urinalysis (UA) is unclear.

183 Gram stains remain the cornerstone of diagnostic testing

184 asured against the final clinical laboratory Gram stain report after growth of organism in culture.

185 luate the sequential and separate impacts of Gram stain reporting and MALDI-TOF bacterial identificat

186 ng 202 episodes of gram-negative bacteremia, Gram stain reporting had an impact in 42 cases (20.8%).

187 a cases, demonstrating a greater impact than Gram stain reporting.

188 suited to a rapid-response laboratory where Gram stain requests are commonly received on a stat basi

189 A positive Gram stain result for bacteria is diagnostic, but the se

190 iagnostic, but the sensitivity of a positive Gram stain result for bacterial meningitis ranges from 5

191 Seventy-eight blood cultures with a Gram stain result of Gram-positive cocci in pairs and/or

192 Empirical therapy was prescribed before the Gram stain result was known in 40 (49%) patients and aft

193 ponding culture results were compared to the Gram stain result, the sensitivity and specificity were

194 d/or Fungal pathogen BCID Panel based on the Gram stain result.

195 ic selection did not vary based on the urine Gram stain result.

196 ed to means of 27.9 +/- 13.6 h to obtain the Gram stain results and 81.6 +/- 24.0 h to generate the f

197 cing compared to the time required to obtain Gram stain results and final culture identification for

198 tic agreement was observed between BAL fluid Gram stain results and microbiologically confirmed gram-

199 re bottles on average about 16 h sooner than Gram stain results became available and approximately 3

200 time of phlebotomy and after notification of Gram stain results by telephone.

201 Molecular tests that supplement Gram stain results from positive blood cultures provide

202 n types, excessive variation was noted among Gram stain results obtained from replicate smears.

203 Gram stain results were discrepant from culture for 5% o

204 reus/CoNS identification simultaneously with Gram stain results.

205 hich 926 were clinical samples with negative Gram stain results.

206 tive bacteria/none (BAC Two) and compared to Gram stain results.

207 electron microscopy, LIVE/DEAD staining, and Gram staining revealed a difference in the distributions

208 Accordingly, Gram staining revealed bacteria within peritoneal fluids

209 followed by standard samples for blood agar, Gram stain, Sabouraud agar, thioglycolate broth, and bra

210 irmation of diagnosis requires microscopy of Gram-stained samples, bacterial culture or nucleic acid

211 acterial vaginosis (BV) as defined by Nugent Gram stain score >/=7.

212 aginal smears were categorized by the Nugent Gram stain score (0-3, normal; 4-6, intermediate state;

213 for BV based on a combination of the Nugent Gram stain score and Amsel clinical criteria, were analy

214 Bacterial vaginosis was based on a Nugent's Gram stain score of 7 or higher.

215 reference standard incorporating both Nugent Gram stain scores and Amsel clinical criteria.

216 luded film dissolution rate, Nugent score (a Gram stain scoring system to diagnose bacterial vaginosi

217 Therefore, a positive Gram stain should not be used to narrow anti-infective t

218 Debrided tissues examined by Gram stain showed large aggregations of Gram positive co

219 Sequencing of 16S PCR products and Gram staining showed that the majority of bacteria in th

220 mals, stained with hematoxylin-eosin and the Gram stain, showed edema and/or hemorrhage in the lungs

221 Patients with positive blood cultures with Gram stains showing GNB were randomized to SOC testing w

222 A total of 157 patient blood cultures with gram stains showing gram-positive cocci in clusters were

223 We used gram-stained slides of vaginal smears to diagnose abnorm

224 terial DNA is amplified directly from sputum Gram-stained slides.

225 d (SACCT) and determined the failure rate of Gram stain smears (GSS) due to insufficient cellular mat

226 Gram stain smears and culture isolation for N. gonorrhoe

227 We evaluated induced sputum Gram stain smears and cultures from hospitalized childre

228 r these microorganisms have been observed by Gram stain smears from positive blood cultures.

229 al aspirates could be sampled when preparing Gram-stained smears and inoculating cultures.

230 48 of 56 (88%) of cases, examination of the Gram-stained specimen revealed the causative organism.

231 ries were required to interpret standardized Gram-stained specimens of clinical material prepared by

232 The microscopic examination of Gram-stained sputum specimens is very helpful in the eva

233 was considered pneumococcal if either sputum Gram stain, sputum culture, blood culture, or the immuno

234 ity and specificity of blood culture, sputum Gram stain, sputum polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and

235 of emerging rapid molecular results, is the Gram stain still relevant?

236 to collect sufficient cellular material for Gram stain testing remains unknown.

237 are the samples of choice for point-of-care Gram stain testing to diagnose Neisseria gonorrhoeae inf

238 tified by conventional methods that included Gram staining, tests for colonial morphology, tests for

239 discrepant results had reported organisms on Gram stain that were not recovered in culture.

240 of microsporidia in corneal scrapings using Gram stain, the modified Kinyoun acid-fast stain, or bot

241 Time from Gram stain to appropriate antimicrobial de-escalation or

242 to examine the role of respiratory specimen Gram stain to diagnose VAP, and the correlation with fin

243 criteria, and vaginal fluid was assessed by Gram stain to generate Nugent scores.

244 use of ADX significantly decreased time from Gram stain to ID (median, 23 vs 2.2 hours, P < .001) and

245 Time from BCB Gram stain to microorganism identification was shorter i

246 ST (median, 23 vs 7.4 hours, P < .001), from Gram stain to optimal therapy (median, 11 vs 7 hours, P

247 Compared to urine Gram stain, UA had equal sensitivity (97.3% versus 97.5%

248 if blood culture, induced-sputum culture or Gram stain, urine antigen test, or whole-blood lytA rtPC

249 culture bottles that demonstrated yeasts on Gram stain using a Candida albicans peptide nucleic acid

250 is enumeration of bacterial morphotypes of a Gram-stained vaginal smear (i.e., Nugent scoring).

251 Alternatively, the reading of Gram-stained vaginal smears by scoring techniques such a

252 the initial positive blood culture until the Gram stain was called was evaluated for 917 cases of blo

253 Urine Gram stain was considered positive if any organisms were

254 Lytic/10 bottle) culture was positive but a Gram stain was negative and there was no growth of bacte

255 ives"; the instrument signaled negative, the Gram stain was negative, and subcultures on chocolate ag

256 m stain but the positive predictive value of Gram stain was only 40%.

257 culture bottles newly positive for yeast by Gram staining was performed at five hospitals.

258 ontained Gram-negative bacilli identified by Gram staining, we isolated bacterial DNA using spin colu

259 ting only Gram-positive cocci in clusters on Gram stain were tested by QuickFISH, a 20-min assay.

260 tles) with Gram-positive cocci observed with Gram staining were analyzed using the BC-GP assay.

261 aginosis and had a Nugent score of 4-10 from Gram staining were eligible.

262 lture bottles with GPC seen in clusters with Gram staining were tested using the BNSA test and a dire

263 Gram stains were examined under x100 magnification to qu

264 instrument signaled positive, and subsequent Gram stains were positive and subcultures on chocolate a

265 Gram stains were positive in all SeA and SeTA specimens.

266 mer-based deep learning model for automating Gram-stained whole-slide image classification.

267 icial intelligence-based characterization of Gram-stained whole-slide images (WSIs).

268 ginal environment (normal flora confirmed by Gram stain with no candidiasis or trichomoniasis).

269 eveloped a novel transformer-based model for Gram-stained WSI classification, which is more scalable

270 e classification of five major categories of Gram-stained WSIs: gram-positive cocci in clusters, gram