ライフサイエンスコーパス: turnaround time

1 infections (depending on test frequency and turnaround time).

2 se can be timely stopped within a very short turnaround time.

3 osis is inadequate primarily with respect to turnaround time.

4 ivity and specificity, with only a 1- to 2-h turnaround time.

5 iven data on mNGS test performance, cost and turnaround time.

6 ld be performed simultaneously with a 40 min turnaround time.

7 es remained; furthermore, culture has a long turnaround time.

8 test for 21 respiratory pathogens with a 1-h turnaround time.

9 s are limited by poor sensitivity and a slow turnaround time.

10 le sensitivity and specificity, with a short turnaround time.

11 nd less labor-intensive and has a more rapid turnaround time.

12 rcial biochemical testing but a much shorter turnaround time.

13 is a practical method for decreasing patient turnaround time.

14 adherence and compliance as well as a quick turnaround time.

15 le handling, as well as reducing the overall turnaround time.

16 ost (which varies by country), batching, and turnaround time.

17 ility, low cost per sample, and a reasonable turnaround time.

18 zed facilities, delaying crucial results and turnaround time.

19 their superior diagnostic accuracy and fast turnaround time.

20 th different techniques, specifications, and turnaround time.

21 of differential expression data with a rapid turnaround time.

22 , although 2-3 weeks would be a more typical turnaround time.

23 volve technical difficulties and have a long turnaround time.

24 staff that may not be available with a rapid turnaround time.

25 PET/CT scans and has the potential to reduce turnaround time.

26 preparation from blood, hence hampering the turnaround time.

27 based drug susceptibility testing (DST), and turnaround time.

28 g highly sophisticated instruments with long turnaround times.

29 a LOD of 0.25% at lower cost and with faster turnaround times.

30 astructure requirements to unacceptably long turnaround times.

31 ays in infectious diseases that demand rapid turnaround times.

32 s to overcome sample transportation and long turnaround times.

33 PCR was employed, which enabled short assay turnaround times.

34 nd agreement between assays and the shortest turnaround times.

35 e a specialized laboratory or have prolonged turnaround times.

36 nificantly improved laboratory work flow and turnaround times.

37 exes (DI), high test throughputs, costs, and turnaround times.

38 and can suffer from low sensitivity and long turnaround times.

39 ociated with reductions in reported specimen turnaround times.

40 curacy, miss rate, or examination and report turnaround times.

41 he symptom burden in patients within shorter turnaround times.

42 rd" for diagnosis but is limited by its long turnaround time (1-7 days depending on the organism) and

43 All four MTP systems had turnaround times 12 to 24 h less than that for Southern

44 Compared to culture, the faster turnaround time (3 hours) of 216Dx has the potential to

45 gnificant differences in report availability turnaround time (75 minutes [IQR, 19-147 minutes] vs ann

46 This technology provides rapid data turnaround time, a much needed feature during product ch

47 d NGS mandates inexpensive instruments, fast turnaround time and an integrated and robust workflow.

48 n resource-intensive, expensive, have a long turnaround time and are beyond the capacity of most mala

49 mptions for South Africa, tNGS had a reduced turnaround time and averted 97 years of infectious time.

50 ased approach, requiring as little as 9 h of turnaround time and blood volumes as small as 200 microl

51 tion by MALDI-TOF MS potentially reduces the turnaround time and cost, thereby saving resources withi

52 ltiplexing, workflow simplicity, and reduced turnaround time and cost.

53 hereby increasing sensitivity while reducing turnaround time and cost.

54 l takes ~2 months, which includes sequencing turnaround time and data processing with MPRAflow.

55 To improve turnaround time and decrease the cost of the identificat

56 significant advantages over CBA in terms of turnaround time and ease of use.

57 The method provides quick sample turnaround time and high analysis throughput with low an

58 e-scale testing capacity has led to a lag in turnaround time and hindered contact tracing efforts, re

59 diagnostics of septicemia by shortening test turnaround time and improving yields.

60 e pncA gene has the potential to shorten the turnaround time and increase the accuracy of PZA suscept

61 T cell assays, is characterized by a shorter turnaround time and lower costs.

62 Automated RPR instruments could reduce turnaround time and minimize interpretation errors.

63 thods and had the advantages of a more rapid turnaround time and potential adaptability to use as an

64 Both models lead to reduced turnaround time and retain flexibility for integrating d

65 small numbers of specimens with a short test turnaround time and short hands-on time is desirable for

66 tory, with a resultant improvement in sample turnaround time and significantly reduced costs.

67 AlereLAM, with its rapid turnaround time and simplicity, should be prioritised to

68 on times by 90-95%, facilitating a very fast turnaround time and suggesting CMT-ELISA for improved hu

69 Potential drawbacks include a slower turnaround time and the need to manipulate amplified pro

70 ing in almost all samples, thus reducing the turnaround time and the workload.

71 The simplified test has faster turnaround time and was 96% concordant with a confirmato

72 marizing, the cytospin FA markedly decreased turnaround time and was associated with decreased mortal

73 The limitations, however, are the various turnaround times and availability of testing.

74 gh microfluidics has the potential to reduce turnaround times and costs for analytical devices, parti

75 In order to improve turnaround times and enhance antimicrobial stewardship,

76 ctivity testing typically requires prolonged turnaround times and might be unavailable in resource-po

77 tric MTP systems were likely to improve test turnaround times and patient care at no additional cost.

78 specimens and has the potential of impacting turnaround times and patient care by reducing the need t

79 tation of rapid HSV PCR testing can decrease turnaround times and the duration of unnecessary acyclov

80 gical assay, which considerably improves the turnaround times and throughput for ZIKV diagnosis, was

81 apid (theoretically compatible with same-day turnaround times) and inexpensive for routine clinical u

82 Local epidemiology of CP genotypes, turnaround time, and ease of incorporation into the labo

83 linical diagnostic method of BSI with a long turnaround time, and generally identifies monomicrobial

84 The accuracy, reproducibility, short turnaround time, and high-throughput potential of this p

85 ore with less, enhance quality, improve test turnaround time, and reduce operational expenses.

86 s approach potentially reduces overall cost, turnaround time, and sample volume.

87 racteristics, such as test sensitivity, test turnaround time, and testing interval, were analyzed.

88 ratories to adopt due to its low cost, rapid turnaround time, and user-friendly bioinformatics pipeli

89 However, TEM is labor intensive, has a long turnaround time, and uses equipment that is sometimes no

90 es in patient serum specimens, with improved turnaround times, and can be used for the serological de

91 fers from poor sensitivity, potentially long turnaround times, and complicated ordering practices and

92 ; especially for applications requiring fast turnaround times, and in settings where a centralized la

93 review the timeline of test development, the turnaround times, and the various approved tests, and co

94 arly in clinical settings where accuracy and turnaround times are critical.

95 Tests with excellent performance and rapid turnaround times are needed.

96 on (qPCR) and for isothermal amplification), turnaround times (as with microarrays and next-generatio

97 cult to standardized and most require a long turnaround time before results are available.

98 The goal is to minimize cost and turnaround time between fabrication runs; thereby, allow

99 ere was a significant difference in the mean turnaround time between the ribotyping and MLVA typing (

100 t require a derivatization step, reduces the turnaround time by 10-fold compared to conventional meth

101 24 h after inoculation, which shortens test turnaround time by 2 to 3 days.

102 mode, the Lyra assay reduced intralaboratory turnaround time by 60% (18.1 h versus 45.0 h) but increa

103 ity to run batches of 24 samples reduced the turnaround time by 83% (54 min) compared with that for b

104 ation of this test significantly reduced the turnaround time by 93.3% (P < 0.001), calculated from th

105 The TaqMan methods dramatically decrease the turnaround time by eliminating post-PCR processing.

106 al outcomes of suspected CDV cases, with 2-h turnaround times, by using the CDV FAT.

107 e radiologist can reduce image wait time and turnaround times.(C) RSNA, 2021See also the commentary b

108 linical specimens in a significantly shorter turnaround time compared to culture.

109 thods is sensitive and specific with a short turnaround time compared to other diagnostic methods.

110 10 hours library preparation and sequencing) turnaround time compared to other NGS technologies.

111 ensitivity, similar selectivity, and shorter turnaround time compared to standard enzyme-linked immun

112 Bedside laboratory testing decreases turnaround time compared with a near-patient laboratory.

113 each intervention on queue-adjusted wait and turnaround time compared with historical controls.

114 ite this, its improved sensitivity and rapid turnaround time compared with those of culture are appea

115 detection of multiple GI pathogens improved turnaround time, consolidated laboratory workflow, and s

116 lytical workflows, parameters such as sample turnaround time, cost of analysis, and ease of use must

117 Laboratory turnaround time decreased from 9.8 to 1.7 h for report o

118 Concerns of workflow and turnaround time drive interest in developing shorter fix

119 yping of MRSA strains because of the shorter turnaround time, ease of use, and the inherent advantage

120 tions like poor sensitivity, high cost, slow turnaround time, etc.

121 r from several disadvantages, including long turnaround times, excess sample and reagent consumption,

122 The mean turnaround time for all positive viruses was 4.5 days in

123 ts a new streamlined methodology with a fast turnaround time for analyzing a large panel of pesticide

124 microbial resistance genes will decrease the turnaround time for DNA detection and resistotyping, imp

125 The mean turnaround time for externally authored protocols was im

126 f misinterpretations, owing in part to rapid turnaround time for final reporting.

127 say was 95.8%, with significant decreases in turnaround time for identification and resistance detect

128 The BCID-FP panel offers a faster turnaround time for identification of fungal pathogens i

129 project was successful in improving the mean turnaround time for internally authored protocols (P < .

130 echnologist time (and, thus, labor cost) and turnaround time for laboratories analyzing small numbers

131 We measured turnaround time for microscopy and estimated hypothetica

132 s and clinical specimens, which improves the turnaround time for molecular DST and maximizes the bene

133 The slow turnaround time for Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug susc

134 Rapid diagnostic testing reduces the turnaround time for pathogen identification in the clini

135 erculosis complex hinders the improvement of turnaround time for phenotypic drug susceptibility testi

136 identification, significantly affecting the turnaround time for reporting culture results.

137 LightCycler PCR for detection of VZV, rapid turnaround time for reporting results, virtual eliminati

138 ular tests, and this approach can reduce the turnaround time for reporting results.

139 say over culture is the considerably reduced turnaround time for results.

140 hat the cost of echinocandin therapy and the turnaround time for send-out testing had the potential t

141 o be tested, timing of ordering of tests and turnaround time for testing results.

142 A longer turnaround time for the centralized testing than when te

143 The average HSV PCR test turnaround time for the postimplementation group was red

144 nd have the potential to dramatically reduce turnaround time for the provision of results to the trea

145 The average turnaround time for the reporting of AST results was 39.

146 In this study, we evaluated workflows and turnaround times for a benchtop long-read sequencing app

147 in 2024 reduced median collection-to-result turnaround times for antibody-positive specimens from 84

148 rd" culture-based method, and the laboratory turnaround times for both methods were determined.

149 The hands-on and test turnaround times for CIA were 10 and 30 to 60 min, respe

150 The turnaround times for conventional methods used to detect

151 ral replication, have allowed for reasonable turnaround times for even some of the most slowly growin

152 These constraints can lead to long turnaround times for laboratory diagnostic tests and ham

153 The positivity rates, turnaround times for positive cultures, and BD Phoenix i

154 ages of laboratories meeting the recommended turnaround times for reporting M. tuberculosis testing r

155 Mycobacterium tuberculosis testing and their turnaround times for reporting testing results.

156 er, these methods are resource intensive and turnaround times for results have prevented widespread i

157 Serum and blood swab samples had shorter turnaround times for RNA extraction.

158 both a high degree of sensitivity and rapid turnaround times for the detection of influenza A virus.

159 min, respectively, and the hands-on and test turnaround times for the RSV and hMPV DFAs were 30 and 1

160 me for microscopy and estimated hypothetical turnaround times for Xpert on concentrated and unconcent

161 nes from colonies, the Carba-R assay reduced turnaround time from 56 to 84 h to less than 2 h.

162 g on-site hormone analysis, with a 12-minute turnaround time from blood sampling to assay result.

163 nsitivity and specificity and reduce testing turnaround time from days to hours for detection of Bord

164 For flow cell version R9.4, the estimated turnaround time from patient to identification of BCG, d

165 e value is greatly increased by reducing the turnaround time from positive culture to genotyping resu

166 Among the ACCELERATE cohort, the median turnaround time from sample collection to genotyping res

167 s the potential to significantly shorten the turnaround time from specimen receipt to reporting of re

168 Median turnaround time from specimen receipt was 6.8 hours (don

169 reproducible clinical MRSA sequencing with a turnaround time (from DNA extraction to availability of

170 steps and thus, significantly reduces assay turnaround time (from selection to enumeration <1.5 h as

171 only workflow that balances accuracy against turnaround time, full annotation of plasmid resistance g

172 The turnaround time has been reduced, with improved precisio

173 discusses how the need for reduced clinical turnaround times has influenced chemical instrumentation

174 neration sequencing methods suffer from slow turnaround time, high costs, and are complex to implemen

175 liably subtyped by various methods, the long turnaround times, high cost, and limited availability of

176 The long turnaround time in antimicrobial susceptibility testing

177 MRSA nasal colonization and provided shorter turnaround time in generating positive and negative fina

178 mbers of samples are be analyzed and/or when turnaround time is critical.

179 times are on the order of a few minutes and turnaround time is extremely short as there is no need f

180 The turnaround time is faster than other methods.

181 The sample turnaround time is less than 8 h for simultaneous determ

182 ent COVID-19 diagnostic tests are limited by turnaround time, limited availability, or occasional fal

183 gh sensitivity and specificity and the rapid turnaround time made the SmartCycler RT-PCR valuable for

184 Its simplicity and short turnaround time make it suitable for use in the routine

185 Enhanced sensitivity and rapid turnaround time make the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay an impor

186 These qualities, along with the rapid turnaround time, make Lymph2Cx attractive for implementa

187 per patient (mean 1.61 versus 1.26), faster turnaround time (mean 6.3 versus 25.7 h) and lower likel

188 Both report that the turnaround time (median, 0.66 hour vs 24.68 hours, P < .

189 pared to MGIT-PZA, our test showed a similar turnaround time (medians of 10 and 12 days for PZA-sensi

190 agnostic yield of clinical exome sequencing, turnaround time, molecular findings, patient age at diag

191 We conclude that the rapid turnaround time, multiplex nature of the test (allowing

192 prehensive respiratory virus panel), and the turnaround time necessary to achieve the desired posttes

193 susceptibility tests (AST) suffer prolonged turnaround times, necessitating a minimum of 24 h for re

194 With superior sensitivities and quicker turnaround times, non-culture-based methods may aid the

195 To demonstrate the short assay turnaround times obtainable using the RT-LDR/spFRET assa

196 ifficile Epi assay, a PCR-based assay with a turnaround time of <1 h.

197 able and straightforward to implement with a turnaround time of <1 week.

198 BloC-Printing has a minimum turnaround time of 0.5 h, a maximum resolution of 5 micr

199 of 33.1 (5.6) days of life with a mean (SEM) turnaround time of 13.0 (0.4) days.

200 of germline BRCA testing was 14% with a mean turnaround time of 148.2 calendar days.

201 nfected cells and those from tissues, with a turnaround time of 2-3 d.

202 % uptake of germline BRCA testing and a mean turnaround time of 20.6 days.

203 e cytotoxin neutralization test (CYT) with a turnaround time of 24 to 48 h, versus the Cepheid Xpert

204 specificity and achieved a sample-to-answer turnaround time of 30 min.

205 ed by hospital laboratories with an expected turnaround time of 5 hr or less by 71% of organ procurem

206 A relatively short turnaround time of 5 min was established for the assay w

207 The sensors have a turnaround time of 6 min for whole blood samples and 3 m

208 low-pressure matrix injection (40 psi) and a turnaround time of 70 min for 48-96 samples.

209 tralized testing methods, but with a shorter turnaround time of 86 to 101 min.

210 ficity compared with reference methods and a turnaround time of 90 min.

211 s the potentially life-saving advantage of a turnaround time of about 10min (versus 4+hours for conve

212 lture identification methods and the lengthy turnaround time of antimicrobial susceptibility testing

213 itive than the xTAG RVP Fast assay and had a turnaround time of approximately 1 h.

214 microfluidic rheometer provides a very short turnaround time of around 2 min or less thanks to the im

215 s, a more extensive menu of pathogens, and a turnaround time of as short as 1 h.

216 ion Programme, but these are hindered by the turnaround time of culture.

217 s directly analyzed by DESI-MS, with a total turnaround time of less than 10 min/sample.

218 idate for point-of-care testing, with a test turnaround time of less than 15 min.

219 With an assay turnaround time of less than 2 h, including extraction o

220 e MTBC in growth-positive MGIT resulted in a turnaround time of less than 2 weeks after specimen rece

221 prove the detection time, thereby reaching a turnaround time of less than 60 min.

222 be finished within 1 h and thus shortens the turnaround time of MTBC identification of gold standard

223 With a median turnaround time of seven working days, an integrated cli

224 perators and expensive equipment, and have a turnaround time of several hours to days.

225 diagnosis, unaffordability of the BCS test, turnaround time of the BCS test, preferential use of alt

226 The experimental setup and fast turnaround time of the two methods contributed toward ob

227 nt sensitivity and specificity and the rapid turnaround time of the Xpert PCR assay as well as its st

228 tions of common nontarget nasal flora with a turnaround time of under 4.5 h.

229 cimen were correctly identified with a total turnaround time of ~4 h.

230 Additionally, the OF achieved turnaround times of <= 1 min in 37.2% of exams, compared

231 nza compared to conventional methods (median turnaround times of 1.7 h versus 7.7 h, respectively; P

232 Sample turnaround times of 10 s/sample, with a 120-nL sample co

233 resent a potential delay in treatment due to turnaround times of 18 to 48 h.

234 nds-on time of approximately 60 min and test turnaround times of 6 h (ResPlex II) and 9 h (NGEN).

235 ColabFold-AF2 shortens turnaround times of experiments because of its optimized

236 vel mutations and the feasibility, cost, and turnaround times of NGS-based BCR-ABL1 mutation screenin

237 his testing is centralized and therefore has turnaround times of several days.

238 prolonged incubation times involved lead to turnaround times of typically 1 day, potentially delayin

239 patitis B virus tests, a reduction in sample turnaround times of up to 30% (105 min) was observed for

240 owever, current monitoring tools have a long turnaround time or are operator intensive.

241 isadvantages including low sensitivity, slow turnaround times, or high cost.

242 ct on queue-adjusted image wait (P > .99) or turnaround time (P = .6).

243 The improved turnaround time provided by genotypic identification sys

244 The 20-minute turnaround time provides the potential for point-of-care

245 tions have the potential to improve a test's turnaround time, quality, and cost.

246 The rapid turnaround time, random access, full automation, and hig

247 To minimise turnaround time, rapid DST will need to be prioritised,

248 Given their accuracy, convenience, and quick turnaround time, RDTs and POCTs may be useful in expandi

249 efficiencies to meet increasingly stringent turnaround time requirements without increased costs ass

250 To meet high throughput and rapid turnaround time requirements, newborn screening laborato

251 The impact of variability in turnaround time, sensitivity, specificity, and cost on c

252 Rapid turnaround times should reduce treatment delay and impro

253 t our institution and their effect on in-lab turnaround time (TAT) at a tertiary care microbiology la

254 ck of standard specimen containers, and long turnaround time (TAT) hindered access to quality laborat

255 Staphylococcus QuickFISH has a turnaround time (TAT) of <30 min and a hands-on time (HO

256 However, improving the turnaround time (TAT) of a test requires attention to mo

257 formed on a single specimen can increase the turnaround time (TAT) significantly.

258 Hands-on time (HoT) and total turnaround time (TAT) varied considerably depending on t

259 Test turnaround time (TAT) was measured in business days from

260 diagnostic algorithm with a short analytical turnaround time (TAT), and prospectively validated the a

261 ion method to the standard QIAGEN method for turnaround time (TAT), cost, purity, and use of template

262 including time to first results (TFR), total turnaround time (TAT), number of return visits to load a

263 itching to a molecular assay with a 3-h test-turnaround-time (TAT).

264 Operating room (OR) turnaround times (TATs) and on-time first-case starts (F

265 mpact of these new technologies, we compared turnaround times (TATs) for positive and negative urine

266 ltidisciplinary committee established target turnaround times (TATs) for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid ampl

267 racteristics, usefulness of EVD with DD, and turnaround times (TATs).

268 racteristics, usefulness of EVD with DD, and turnaround times (TATs).

269 These results indicate that this short-turnaround-time test can be used to accurately test pati

270 r sensitivity than direct testing and better turnaround time than current culture and identification

271 achieving greater sensitivities and shorter turnaround times than conventional assays and an ability

272 the overall gains of efficiency, the shorter turnaround time, the inclusion of contamination control

273 thods to monitoring heparin suffer from long turnaround time, the need for skilled personnel, and low

274 of rpoB required a slightly longer (16 days) turnaround time, this method was capable of identifying

275 ter PCR minimizes cycling times and improves turnaround time, throughput, and specificity.

276 y improved the sensitivity detection and the turnaround time to diagnosis compared to culture.

277 lieve that our efforts not only decrease the turnaround time to obtain scientific results but also ha

278 re providing increased sensitivity and rapid turnaround time to results but also challenging our inte

279 Cost and turnaround time to results were compared for the algorit

280 formation on possible stroke events in short turnaround times using RT-LDR/spFRET will enable clinici

281 Typical turnaround times vary, due to assay incubation periods a

282 r time was <24 h, while our sample-to-answer turnaround time was <60 h with a hands-on time of approx

283 The mean PCR turnaround time was 14.5 h.

284 Mean turnaround time was 16.5 +/-10.1 mins for the near-patie

285 The median LRP-based susceptibility turnaround time was 2 days (range, 2 to 4 days) compared

286 The turnaround time was shortened to 24 h, and results were

287 results were positive (95% CI 4.7-22.4) and turnaround time was shorter (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.8

288 In addition, turnaround time was significantly shorter for the PCR-ba

289 encing technology with a clinically relevant turnaround time, we retrospectively sequenced the DNA fr

290 In search for a platform with a shorter turnaround time, we sought to evaluate the recently rele

291 pecimens was run, the hands-on time and test turnaround time were 105.7 and 121.1 min for miniMAG, 6.

292 ntry into the electronic medical record, and turnaround time were compared to those for CT performed

293 Additionally, LS-AMS turnaround times were minutes instead of days, and HPLC

294 Examination completion turnaround times were significantly increased for radiog

295 lity, but they often require several days of turnaround time, which leads to compromised clinical out

296 ency department (ED) imaging utilization and turnaround times, which were compared with operations fr

297 d plate reading has the potential to improve turnaround time while maintaining high sensitivity and r

298 cess was simple to implement and had a quick turnaround time with low cost.

299 demanding more target flexibility and faster turnaround times with high reproducibility.

300 Point-of-care (POC) testing with rapid turnaround times would allow more effective triage in se