Diagnostic test incorporates artificial intelligence and could shorten the time clinical laboratories need to determine patients’ risk for antimicrobial resistance
Sepsis continues to be a major killer in hospitals worldwide. Defeating it requires early diagnosis, including antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), and timely administration of antibiotics. Now, in a pilot study, scientists at Seoul National University in South Korea have developed a new clinical laboratory test that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to pinpoint the condition sooner, enabling faster treatment of the deadly bacterial infection.
Sepsis, also known as septicemia or blood poisoning, is a serious medical condition that occurs when the body overreacts to an infection or injury. This often takes place in hospitals through blood-line infections and exposure to deadly bacteria. The dangerous reaction causes extensive inflammation throughout the body. If not treated early, sepsis can lead to organ failure, tissue damage, and even death.
Research teams around the world are creating new technologies and approaches to slash time to answer from when blood specimen is collected to a report of whether the patient is or is not positive for sepsis. The Seoul National University scientists’ new approach is yet another sign for microbiologists and clinical laboratory managers of the priority test developers are giving to solving the problem of diagnosing sepsis faster than using blood culture methodology, which requires several days of incubation.
“Sepsis strikes over 40 million people worldwide each year, with a mortality rate ranging from 20% to 50%,” said Sunghoon Kwon, PhD (above), professor of electrical and computer engineering at Seoul National University and senior author of the study, in an interview with The Times in the UK. “This high mortality rate leads to over 10 million deaths annually. Thus, accurate and prompt antibiotic prescription is essential for treatment,” he added. Clinical laboratories play a critical role in the testing and diagnosis of sepsis. (Photo copyright: Seoul National University.)
Reducing Time to Diagnosis
Seoul National University’s approach begins with drawing a sample of the patient’s blood. The researchers then attach special peptide molecules to magnetic nanoparticles and add those nanoparticles to the blood sample. The particles bind to the harmful pathogens in the blood.
The harmful bacteria are then collected using magnets. Their DNA is extracted, amplified, and analyzed to establish the type of microbes that are present in the sample.
The pathogens are exposed to antibiotics and an AI algorithm evaluates their growth patterns to forecast what treatments would be most beneficial to the patient. This last step is known as antimicrobial susceptibility testing or AST.
“The principle is simple,” said Sunghoon Kwon, PhD, professor of electrical and computer engineering at Seoul National University and senior author of the study, in a Nature podcast. “We have a magnetic nanoparticle. The surface of the magnetic nanoparticle we coat in a peptide that can capture the bacteria.”
Kwon is the CEO of Quantamatrix, the developer of the test.
The complete process can be performed on one machine and results are available in about 12 hours, which reduces typical AST time by 30 to 40 hours when compared to traditional processes.
“Sepsis progresses very quickly, with the survival rate dropping with each passing hour,” Kwon told The Times UK. “Every minute is crucial.”
Preventing Antimicrobial Resistance
The team assessed the performance of their test on 190 hospital patients who had a suspected sepsis infection. The test achieved a 100% match in the identification of a bacterial species. The test also achieved an efficiency of 96.2% for capturing Escherichia coli (E. coli) and 91.5% for capturing Staphylococcus aureus.
“Treatment assessment and patient outcome for sepsis depend predominantly on the timely administration of appropriate antibiotics,” the authors wrote in Nature.
“However,” they added, “the clinical protocols used to stratify and select patient-specific optimal therapy are extremely slow,” due to existing blood culture procedures that may take two or three days to complete.
“The microbial load in patient blood is extremely low, ranging between 1 and 100 colony-forming units (CFU) ml−1 and is vastly outnumbered by blood cells,” the study authors explained. “Due to this disparity, prior steps—including blood culture (BC) to amplify the number of pathogens followed by pure culture to subculture purified colonies of isolates—have been essential for subsequent pathogen species identification (ID) and AST.”
Further research, studies and regulatory approval are needed before this technique becomes available, but the South Korean scientists believe it could be ready for use within two to three years. They also state their test can help prevent antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and bolster the strength of existing antibiotics.
Previous Studies
The Seoul National University study is just the latest effort by scientists to develop faster methods for clinical laboratory testing and diagnosing of sepsis.
In September, Dark Daily reported on a similar test that uses digital imaging and AI to determine sepsis risk for emergency room patients.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at least 1.7 million adults develop sepsis annually in the US, and that at least 350,000 die as a result of the condition. CDC also lists sepsis as one of the main reasons people are readmitted to hospitals.
Microbiologists and clinical laboratory managers should be aware that scientists are prioritizing the creation of new testing methods for faster detection of sepsis. Various research teams around the world are devising technologies and approaches to reduce the time needed to diagnose sepsis to improve patient outcomes and save lives.
“Previously … CDC developed tests for emerging pathogens and then shared those tests with others, and then after that, commercial labs would develop their own tests,” Shah told CNN. “That process took time. Now with these new arrangements, commercial labs will be developing new tests for public health responses alongside CDC, not after CDC.”
In a news release announcing the contract, ARUP Laboratories also characterized the move as a shift for the agency.
“The new contract formalizes ARUP’s relationship with the CDC,” said Benjamin Bradley, MD, PhD, medical director of the ARUP Institute for Research and Innovation in Infectious Disease Genomic Technologies, High Consequence Pathogen Response, Virology, and Molecular Infectious Diseases. “We continue to expand our capabilities to address public health crises and are prepared to scale up testing for H5N1, or develop other tests quickly, should the need arise.”
“To be clear, we have no evidence so far that this [bird flu] virus can easily infect human beings or that it can spread between human beings easily in a sustained fashion,” Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH (above), Director of the Pandemic Center and Professor of Epidemiology at Brown University School of Public Health, told CNN. “If it did have those abilities, we would be in a pandemic.” Clinical laboratory leaders will recall the challenges at the CDC as it developed its SARS-CoV-2 test early in the COVID-19 pandemic. (Photo copyright: Brown University.)
Missouri Case Raises Concerns
The first human infection of HPAI was reported in late March following a farmer’s “exposure to dairy cows presumably infected with bird flu,” the CDC stated in its June 3, 2024, bird flu Situation Summary. That followed confirmation by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of an HPAI outbreak in commercial poultry flocks in February 2022, and the CDC’s confirmation of the first known infections in dairy herds reported on March 25, 2024.
Concerns about the outbreak were heightened in September following news that a person in Missouri had been infected with the virus despite having no known contact with infected animals. CNN reported that it was the 14th human case in the US this year, but all previous cases were in farm workers known to be exposed to infected dairy cattle or poultry.
In a news release, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) revealed that the patient, who was not identified, was hospitalized on Aug. 22. This person had “underlying medical conditions,” DHSS reported, and has since recovered and was sent home. Both DHSS and the CDC conducted tests to determine that the virus was the H5 subtype, the news release states.
At present, the CDC states that the public health risk from the virus is low. However, public health experts are concerned that risks could rise as the weather gets cooler, creating opportunities for the virus to mutate “since both cows and other flu viruses will be on the move,” CNN reported.
Concerns over CDC Testing and FDA Oversight
In the months immediately following the first human case of the bird flu virus, Nuzzo was among several public health experts sounding an alarm about the country’s ability to ramp up testing in the face of new pathogens.
“We’re flying blind,” she told KFF Health News in June, due to an inability to track infections in farmworkers. At that time, tests had been distributed to approximately 100 public health labs, but Nuzzo and other experts noted that doctors typically order tests from commercial laboratories and universities.
KFF reported that one diagnostics company, Neelyx Labs, ran into obstacles as it tried to license the CDC’s bird flu test. Founder, CEO, and lead scientist Shyam Saladi, PhD, told KFF that the federal agency had promised to cooperate by facilitating a license and a “right to reference” CDC data when applying for FDA authorization but was slow to come through.
While acknowledging the need for testing accuracy, Greninger contended that the CDC was prioritizing caution over speed, as it did in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. “The CDC should be trying to open this up to labs with national reach and a good reputation,” he told KFF.
Another problem, KFF reported, related to the FDA’s new oversight of laboratory developed tests (LDTs), which is causing labs to move cautiously in developing their own tests.
Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH (above), Director of the Pandemic Center and Professor of Epidemiology at the Brown University School of Public Health co-authored a June 2024 analysis in Health Affairs that called on the CDC to develop “a better testing playbook for biological emergencies.” The authors’ analysis cited earlier problems with the responses to the COVID-19 and mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) outbreaks.
If global surveillance networks have detected a novel pathogen, the authors advise, the US should gather information and “begin examining the existing testing landscape” within the first 48 hours.
Once the pathogen is detected in the US, they continued, FDA-authorized tests should be distributed to public health laboratories and the CDC’s Laboratory Response Network (LRN) laboratories within 48 hours.
Advocates of this approach suggest that within the first week diagnostics manufacturers should begin developing their own tests and the federal government should begin working with commercial labs. Then, within the first month, commercial laboratories should be using FDA-authorized tests to provide “high throughput capacity.”
This may be good advice. Experts in the clinical laboratory and healthcare professions believe there needs to be improvement in how novel tests are developed and made available as novel infectious agents are identified.
Trend will likely lead to physicians ordering more clinical laboratory screening tests for cancer among all age groups, including young patients
Upticks in colorectal cancer cases among younger populations, as reported in recent news stores, is an issue that has implications for clinical laboratories. According to a study conducted at the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC), the number of colorectal cancer cases in the US has increased greatly since 1999 with the “most dramatic jumps” seen in children, teens, and young adults, a Digestive Disease Week (DDW) news release reported.
“Colorectal cancer is no longer considered just a disease of the elderly population,” said lead researcher Islam Mohamed, MD, an internal medicine resident physician at UMKC. “It’s important that the public is aware of signs and symptoms of colorectal cancer.”
The researchers noted in the DDW news release that “colorectal cancer cases, over about two decades, increased by 500% among children, ages 10 to 14; 333% in teens, ages 15 to 19; and 185% among young adults, ages 20 to 24.”
“[The results of the UMKC study] means that there is a trend. We don’t know what to make of it yet. It could be lifestyle factors or genetics, but there is a trend,” lead researcher Islam Mohamed, MD (above), Internal Medicine Resident, University of Missouri-Kansas City, told NBC News. If proved, this trend could lead to increased demand for clinical laboratory screening tests for colorectal and other cancers among young people. (Photo copyright: Digestive Disease Week.)
0.6/100,000 children ages 10 to 14 (a 500% increase).
1.3/100,000 teens ages 15 to 19 (a 333% increase).
Two/100,000 young adults ages 20 to 24 (a 185% increase).
Albeit small numbers, the cases are growing at a rate that is troublesome, according to experts. As NBC put it, “any increase can take on a larger significance” when rates begin at low points.
The study also found incidence of colorectal cancer up in people in their 30s and 40s, reaching by 2020:
6.5/100,000 people ages 30 to 34 (a 71% increase).
11.7/100,000 people ages 35 to 39 (a 58% increase).
20/100,000 people ages 40 to 44 (a 37% increase).
Screening Guidelines May Need to Change
Further research based on UMKC’s study findings could lead to changes in cancer screening guidelines.
“We were screening people from the age of 60 for colon cancer. This has now been lowered to 55, and that is due to be lowered again to 50 over the next few months,” Jude Tidbury, RN, nurse endoscopist and clinical nurse specialist, gastroenterology and endoscopy, at the UK’s East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, told Healthline.
In the US, the American Cancer Society advises people of average risk for cancer to start screening for colorectal cancer at age 45. The test options ACS recommends annually include:
What is behind early-onset colorectal cancer among certain age groups? An international study led by Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center (Fred Hutch), Seattle, found “strong correlations” with consuming alcohol and being obese with early-onset colorectal cancer in adults under age 50, according to a news release.
The researchers set out to explore the common genetic variants and causal modifiable risk factors that are behind early-onset colorectal cancer, according to a paper they published in the journal Annals of Oncology.
To do so they used big databases, pulling out 6,176 early-onset colorectal cancer cases and 65,829 controls from sources including:
They focused on “lifestyle factors increasing risk” by comparing the genetic variations in those with colorectal cancer to healthy people, the Fred Hutch news release explained.
“It’s important to see that alcohol and obesity are linked to early-onset colorectal cancer. Also, insulin signaling and infection-related biological pathways. These are all really important to understand—it’s helping us to develop interventions,” said Ulrike Peters, PhD, Professor and Associate Director, Public Health Services Division, Fred Hutch, who co-led the research, in the news release.
Peters noted future research may aim to address data gaps relating to racial and ethnic groups.
More Colorectal Cancer Tests
As studies continue to explore the notion that cancer may not be a disease of aging,
clinical laboratories could see more primary care physicians and healthcare consumers using colorectal cancer screening tests, which require analysis and reporting by labs.
Medical laboratory leaders may want to proactively encourage lab sales and service representatives to educate physician office staff about using the lab’s available resources for screening young adults for colorectal cancer.
Though PCR clinical laboratory testing is widely used, some scientists are concerned its specificity may limit the ability to identify all variants of bird flu in wastewater
Wastewater testing of infectious agents appears to be here to stay. At the same time, there are differences of opinion about which methodologies and clinical laboratory tests are best suited to screen for specific contagions in wastewater. One such contagion is avian influenza, the virus that causes bird flu.
Wastewater testing by public health officials became a valuable tool during the COVID-19 pandemic and has now become a common method for detecting other diseases as well. For example, earlier this year, scientists used wastewater testing to learn how the H5N1 variant of the bird flu virus was advancing among dairy herds across the country.
In late March, the bird flu was first detected in dairy cattle in Texas, prompting scientists to begin examining wastewater samples to track the virus. Some researchers, however, expressed concerns about the ability of sewage test assays to detect all variants of certain diseases.
“Right now we are using these sort of broad tests to test for influenza A viruses,” Denis Nash, PhD, Distinguished Professor of Epidemiology at City University of New York (CUNY) and Executive Director of CUNY’s Institute for Implementation Science in Population Health (SPH), told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s possible there are some locations around the country where the primers being used in these tests might not work for H5N1.” Clinical laboratory PCR genetic testing is most commonly used to screen for viruses in wastewater. (Photo copyright: CUNY SPH.)
Effectiveness of PCR Wastewater Testing
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are most commonly used to distinguish genetic material related to a specific illness such as the flu virus. For PCR tests to correctly identify a virus, the tests must be designed to look for a specific subtype. The two most prevalent human influenza A viruses are known as H1N1 (swine flu) and H3N2, which was responsible for the 1968 pandemic that killed a million people worldwide. The “H” stands for hemagglutinin and the “N” for neuraminidase.
Hemagglutinin is a glycoprotein that assists the virus to attach to and infect host cells. Neuraminidase is an enzyme found in many pathogenic or symbiotic microorganisms that separates the links between neuraminic acids in various molecules.
Avian flu is also an influenza A virus, but it has the subtype H5N1. Although human and bird flu viruses both contain the N1 signal, they do not share an H. Some scientists fear that—in cases where a PCR test only looks for H1 and H3 in wastewater—that test could miss the bird flu altogether.
“We don’t have any evidence of that. It does seem like we’re at a broad enough level that we don’t have any evidence that we would not pick up H5,” Jonathan Yoder, Deputy Director, Infectious Disease Readiness and Innovation at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told the Los Angeles Times.
The CDC asserts current genetic testing methods are standardized and will detect the bird flu. Yoder also affirmed the tests being used at all the testing sites are the same assay, based on information the CDC has published regarding testing for influenza A viruses.
Genetic Sequencing Finds H5N1 in Texas Wastewater
In an article published on the preprint server medRxiv titled, “Virome Sequencing Identifies H5N1 Avian Influenza in Wastewater from Nine Cities,” the authors wrote, “using an agnostic, hybrid-capture sequencing approach, we report the detection of H5N1 in wastewater in nine Texas cities, with a total catchment area population in the millions, over a two-month period from March 4th to April 25th, 2024.”
The authors added, “Although human to human transmission is rare, infection has been fatal in nearly half of patients who have contracted the virus in past outbreaks. The increasing presence of the virus in domesticated animals raises substantial concerns that viral adaptation to immunologically naïve humans may result in the next flu pandemic.”
“So, it’s not just targeting one virus—or one of several viruses—as one does with PCR testing,” Eric Boerwinkle, PhD, Dean of the UTHealth Houston School of Public Health told the LA Times. “We’re actually in a very complex mixture, which is wastewater, pulling down viruses and sequencing them. What’s critical here is it’s very specific to H5N1.”
Epidemiologist Blake Hanson, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences at the UT Health Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Science, agreed with Boerwinkle that though the PCR-based methodology is highly effective at detecting avian flu in wastewater samples, the testing can do more.
“We have the ability to look at the representation of the entire genome, not just a marker component of it. And so that has allowed us to look at H5N1, differentiate it from some of our seasonal fluids like H1N1 and H3N2,” Hanson told the LA Times. “It’s what gave us high confidence that it is entirely H5N1, whereas the other papers are using a part of the H5 gene as a marker for H5.”
Human or Animal Sources
Both Boerwinkle and Hanson are epidemiologists in the team studying wastewater samples for H5N1 in Texas. They are not sure where the virus originated but are fairly certain it did not come from humans.
“Texas is really a confluence of a couple of different flyways for migratory birds, and Texas is also an agricultural state, despite having quite large cities,” Boerwinkle noted. “It’s probably correct that if you had to put your dime and gamble what was happening, it’s probably coming from not just one source but from multiple sources. We have no reason to think that one source is more likely any one of those things.”
“Because we are looking at the entirety of the genome, when we look at the single human H5N1 case, the genomic sequence has a hallmark amino acid change, compared to all of the cattle from that same time point,” Hanson said. “We do not see that hallmark amino acid present in any of our sequencing data. And we’ve looked very carefully for that, which gives us some confidence that we’re not seeing human-human transmission.”
CDC Updates on Bird Flu
In its weekly updates on the bird flu situation, the CDC reported that 48 states have outbreaks in poultry and 14 states have avian flu outbreaks in dairy cows. More than 238 dairy herds have been affected and, as of September 20, over 100 million poultry have been affected by the disease.
In addition, the CDC monitored more than 4,900 people who came into contact with an infected animal. Though about 230 of those individuals have been tested for the disease, there have only been a total of 14 reported human cases in the US.
The CDC posts information specifically for laboratory workers, healthcare providers, and veterinarians on its website.
The CDC also states that the threat from avian flu to the general public is low. Individuals at an increased risk for infection include people who work around infected animals and those who consume products containing raw, unpasteurized cow’s milk.
Symptoms of H5N1 in humans may include fever or chills, cough, headaches, muscle or body aches, runny or stuffy nose, tiredness and shortness of breath. Symptoms typically surface two to eight days after exposure.
Scientists and researchers have been seeking a reliable clinical laboratory test for disease organisms in a fast, accurate, and cost-effective manner. Wastewater testing of infectious agents could fulfill those goals and appears to be a technology that will continue to be used for tracking disease.
With FDA clearance already approved, hospital infection control teams and their clinical laboratories may have another diagnostic tool for diagnosing blood infections
Controlling sepsis in hospitals continues to be a major concern in nations around the world, including in the United States. Now, a new 10-minute clinical laboratory blood test that uses artificial intelligence (AI) and digital images to spot biomarkers of the potentially fatal condition may soon be available for use in hospitals. The test, which was approved to be marketed in the US in 2022 by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), may be “one of the most important breakthroughs in modern medical history,” according to US researchers, Good News Network (GNN) reported.
“Early detection of sepsis is an invaluable capability for healthcare professionals. Quickly identifying sepsis is critical to saving lives, but until now, we’ve lacked a reliable tool to either recognize the condition or explore alternate diagnoses,” said O’Neal in an LSU press release.
“IntelliSep is truly a game changer,” said Hollis O’Neal, MD (above), Associate Professor of Medicine at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in Baton Rouge. “The test provides hospital staff with information needed to identify and treat septic patients efficiently and reduce the financial and health burdens of overtreatment for hospitals and patients.” Clinical laboratories may have a new blood test for sepsis by the end of the year. (Photo copyright: Louisiana State University.)
How IntelliSep Works
The IntelliSep test analyzes blood samples extracted from emergency room patients who present with sepsis symptoms by squeezing white blood cells through a tiny tube to determine how the cells react and if they change shape. White blood cells in patients with sepsis are softer and spongier and their shape compresses and elongates, increasing the likelihood of developing sepsis.
Images are taken of the cells using an ultra-high-speed camera that can capture up to 500,000 frames per second. The images are the analyzed by an AI-powered computer which calculates the total number of elongated white blood cells to determine if sepsis is present.
IntelliSep then separates patients into three bands of risk for developing sepsis:
Band 1 (low)
Band 2 (medium)
Band 3 (high)
Results of the test are available to emergency room personnel in less than 10 minutes.
“Sepsis is notorious as the ‘silent killer’ because it is so easily missed early on, when a patient’s symptoms can often be mistaken for other less serious illnesses,” Michael Atar, PhD, DDS, Associate Professor, Pediatric Dentistry at New York University told Good News Network. “Rapid diagnosis and treatment is crucial to a good outcome, but there has never been a single, reliable diagnostic test available to doctors, costing precious time and people’s lives.”
Atar is a lead medical technology investor and an advisor to Cytovale.
‘Holy Grail’ of Sepsis Diagnosis
To complete the IntelliSep study, researchers enrolled 1,002 ER patients who presented with signs of sepsis. IntelliSep correctly identified patients who did not have sepsis with an accuracy rate of 97.5%. The technology showed an accuracy rate of 55% for positive sepsis results. Researchers also used IntelliSep to quickly diagnose and assess the severity of a sepsis infection.
There were no sepsis deaths reported in patients with low-risk scores. This indicates the test could help physicians rule out sepsis and seek other diagnoses for those patients.
“Cytovale’s IntelliSep device is, by any objective measure, the ‘holy grail’ that the medical community has been so desperate to find,” Atar told Good News Network. “The technology behind it is genuinely groundbreaking and it has the real-world, tried-and-tested potential to save millions of lives, year on year, across the planet.”
The technology is currently being used in a few hospitals in Louisiana and the inventors hope to have it available in at least 10 other hospitals by the end of the year.
Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center, a not-for-profit Catholic healthcare ministry located in Baton Rouge, was one of the first hospitals to implement IntelliSep.
“Cytovale’s innovative technology will help drastically decrease the number of sepsis-related deaths in hospital settings, and we are honored that, since day one, we have been a part of the research that led to this technology,” said Chuck Spicer, President of Our Lady of the Lake Health in a news release.
Saint Francis Medical Center in Monroe, La., announced on September 3 that it has started using the IntelliSep test in its emergency rooms and staff are impressed by the impact on hospital efficiency.
“If it turns out negative then you don’t have to treat as many patients as you did before, which runs up costs, hospital bills and causes people to be in the hospital for longer periods of time,” said pulmonary disease physician Thomas Gullatt, MD, President, St. Francis Health, told KNOE News.
Patient Expectations for Treatment
Sepsis, also known as septicemia or blood poisoning, is a serious medical condition that occurs when the body improperly reacts to an infection or injury. The dangerous reaction causes extensive inflammation throughout the body and, if not treated early, can lead to organ failure, tissue damage, and even death.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports at least 1.7 million adults develop sepsis annually in the US and at least 350,000 die as a result of the condition. It also states sepsis is one of the main reasons people are readmitted to hospitals.
Clinical laboratories should be aware of developments in the use of this new diagnostic assay and how it is aiding the diagnosis, antibiotic selection, and monitoring of patients with this deadly infection. Patients often learn about new technologies and come to their hospital or provider expecting to be treated with these innovations.
