Open Access
Issue
4open
Volume 5, 2022
Article Number 10
Number of page(s) 7
Section Life Sciences - Medicine
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/fopen/2022008
Published online 20 May 2022

© B. Garry et al., Published by EDP Sciences, 2022

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Introduction

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition due to a dysregulated host response to infections [1]. It is a global problem and risk for patients irrespective of economic status. In a large study that reviewed literature from 1997 to 2015, the authors estimated 31.5 million sepsis and 19.4 million severe sepsis cases occurred, with potentially 5.3 million deaths per annum globally [2]. In the military, past experience shows that infections, including sepsis, pose an enormous threat to injured soldiers [3]. Early application of appropriate treatment which can be successfully achieved with improved detection/identification of bacteria is a key step in the suppression of sepsis mortality [4, 5]. In a large study of 35,000 patients the median time to first antibiotic treatment was 2.1 h “each hour of delay in administering the appropriate antibiotic lowers survivability by ~ 9%” [6]. With this in mind, physicians are forced to initiate treatment with a broad spectrum of antibiotics relying on experience and clinical judgment. This empirical approach leads to misuse and overuse of antibiotics that may be harmful. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) observed that 20–50% of antibiotics received by patients are unnecessary or inadequate and 80% of patients are not treated with the right antibiotic [7]. In addition to the enormous cost in lives claimed by sepsis, it is the most expensive hospital-treated condition in the United States, representing $20.3 billion in healthcare costs ($55.6 million/day). These costs are primarily driven by the extended hospitalization of patients generally involving on average 15 days in the Intensive Care Units.

Despite advances in medical technology, blood culture (BC) remains a gold standard and the only approved method in clinical practice to detect and identify infectious agents. The guidelines that describe the principles and practices of BC, which identifies/conforms an infectious etiology of disease, have been well established [8]. Several automated blood culture detection systems have been developed that allow for quicker time to detection. However, they still require up to 38 h depending on the species with anaerobic pathogens taking longer times [9]. Development of optical techniques such as infrared, Raman and fluorescence spectroscopy has the potential for a quicker detection of blood-stream infectious agents [10]. However, optical technologies often require expensive, large foot-print instruments with high electrical needs, maintenance and personnel with specialized training and therefore, can be limited for a widespread clinical use. One optical platform that has a potential to overcome these logistical limitations and contribute to the rapid diagnosis of bacteria in blood is optomagnetic imaging spectroscopy (OMIS) due to the small size of the instrument (~1.5 lb), fast detection (less than 4 min), low energy requirements (about 4 W/sample scan, or 80 W/h) and ease of use as it does not require specialized training.

The OMIS-20ML is a prototype instrument that utilizes quantum mechanics and machine learning (ML) to detect, at the nano level, interactions between light (electromagnetic phenomenon) and valence electrons within the sample (covalent bonds, hydrogen bonds, ion-electron interaction, and van der Waals interactions). OMIS is a spectroscopy method that measures the ratio of unpaired and paired electrons of as sample by leveraging the known aspects of light-matter interactions [15]. Light, as an electromagnetic phenomenon, consists of electric and magnetic waves. When a sample is illuminated under a specific angle, the reflected light is polarized. The specific angle at which this occurs is known as Brewster’s angle; each material has a unique Brewster’s angle value. When using OMIS, light from a diffused light source is reflected by a sample and recorded by the sensor, as indicated in Figure 1. Subsequently, diffuse white light from a second light source placed at the Brewster’s angle of the material is reflected by the sample and recorded by the sensor. The reflected polarized light detected by the sensor contains predominantly an electrical component of light-matter interaction. By subtracting the reflected polarized light (electrical properties) from the reflected white diffuse light (electro-magnetic properties), the result provides information about the magnetic properties of matter based on light-matter interaction (Fig. 1) [15]. A pair of digital images is acquired under white diffuse light, and white diffuse light under Brewster’s angle will result in three spectra – blue, red and green – for each image. When blue, green or red spectra for the image of the sample taken under Brewster’s angle are subtracted from the blue, green or red spectra for the image of the sample taken under diffuse light, the resultant composite spectrum will represent an opto-magnetic spectrum of the sample.

thumbnail Figure 1

Schematic representation of conventional imaging spectroscopy using diffuse light (left) and special imaging spectroscopy using polarized light (right). The relative positions of light sources for the two imaging spectroscopies are indicated. Reflected diffuse white light arises from the Light source (6 light-emitting diodes arranged in the circle) perpendicular to the sample and reflected polarized light (right) arises from the light source positioned at Brewster’s angle (for biological tissues, approximately 530 degrees). The degree of light polarization is 95.4%, while angular diffusion of the light source is ± 1:6 (the difference between the angles θ1 and θ2), which through convolution spectra gives Opto-magnetic Imaging Spectroscopy.

For processing (classification) of samples, machine learning is integrated to use the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) algorithm to create a model that can distinguish between different classes of samples. This differentiation is further confirmed by the Random Forest (RF) algorithm. The limit of detection is directly related to algorithm training and efficiency and the capabilities of the charge-coupled device (CCD). The more data provided to the algorithm, the more efficient the algorithm for detection becomes, and in turn, the detection becomes more sensitive and specific at differentiation of samples.

The measuring repeatability of the OMIS-20ML for the same sample is: 98.8 ± 1.2%, 97.8 ± 2.2% and 96.9 ± 3.1%, for solid state matter, viscoelastic matter (tissues) and liquids, respectively. OMIS-20ML has been successfully used as diagnostic tool for several cancers [1114] and detection of viruses in plasma [15] with very high accuracy and sensitivity.

Here we present results of the proof-of-principle study using OMIS for the rapid detection of bacteria in blood.

Material and methods

Bacterial strain and growth conditions

Glycerol stocks of each bacterial species used in this project originated from the diversity sets in possession of the Wound Infections Department at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR). Diversity sets consist of clinical isolates collected from the wounded service members. Overnight bacterial cultures were sub-cultured on the day of the experiments in LB broth (37 °C, 250 rpm) and grown to optical density 0.5 (OD600 = 0.5). The solution of bacteria with this optical density corresponds to the known number of bacteria which was used for final dilutions prepared by mixing appropriate volume of bacterial suspension with fresh human blood (Human Whole Blood K3EDTA-treated, pooled gender blood was used as control (Lot#BRH1574334) BioIVT, USA) and used for experiments.

Imaging procedure

A total volume of 50 μL of blood/blood spiked with bacteria was used for imaging. Blood was placed on the glass slide and covered with glass cover slips creating a thin layer of blood. Slides were inserted in the slide holder of the OMIS-20ML instrument (Fig. 2). The probe was placed over the glass slide and imaged for 90 s. Analysis was performed over a duration of approximately 60 s. Set up (approximately 30 s) and analysis lasted for total of 180 s (Fig. 2).

thumbnail Figure 2

Workflow of the OMIS imaging and data analysis. Step 1 – set up experiment in laboratory; Step 2 – sampling blood; Step 3 – placement of 50 μL of blood on glass slide; Step 4 – cover the blood using glass cover slip; Step 5 – positioning of the slide in the OMIS20-ML slide

Experimental design

A total of 240 samples (60 samples per concentration with 60 samples of sterile blood) were imaged and data were analyzed. About 1 × 106, 1 × 105 and 1 × 104 CFU/mL corresponded to High (H), Medium (M) and Low (L) concentrations respectively. In the validation phase, personnel performing the data acquisition and analysis were blinded for group/number of bacteria in the sample.

Data analysis and statistical analysis

We used machine learning to classify samples. Machine learning overcomes some limitations of the conventional statistical methods by making use of a more diverse type of input data, as well as giving us a more generalized mathematical model for classifying data. For machine learning no prior knowledge about the data is needed. The analytical method used to collect the data needs to provide features that the algorithm can use to create a model that can distinguish between different classes. In the case of OMIS, these features are the ratio between unpaired electrons (paramagnetic) and paired electrons (diamagnetic) of the sample.

We used two approaches, Random Forest Classifier (RFC) and ANN to classify data into predetermined categories. The type and architecture of an ANN is based on the task it needs to perform, after which it is conjured by using a class-labelled dataset so that, when it is presented with unknown data of the same type, it can determine to which class it belongs. We used Multilayer Perceptron, a feedforward artificial neural network with four output neurons competing with each other that takes in the entire nonzero portion of the OMIS spectrum. Prior to the model’s configuration, the dataset was split into two parts, a set of class-labelled data used to configure the model, and the data used to test the prediction capability of the new model configuration. Next, we performed training of the ANN through an iterative process of configuring the ANN with labelled data, and testing the models accuracy and efficacy on the unknown data (validations), until the desired accuracy was reached.

Results

After signals are analyzed, OMIS-20ML provides a graphical output of the spectra with appropriate categorization of the sample (Fig. 3). It is important to note that the OMIS-20ML analyzes diamagnetic and paramagnetic properties of each sample across the entire spectrum of wavelengths and analyze them. Significant points described in Figure 3 are some of the most obvious differences demonstrated for the user; however, the result is provided based on the entire spectrum.

thumbnail Figure 3

Representative diagram of results for all classes of samples analyzed with significant wavelengths used for differentiation of samples.

Using OMIS, we successfully differentiated between sterile versus not sterile blood. In first set of experiments, we tested the ability of OMIS to can detect the presence of bacteria in blood samples and to provide binary, sterile blood versus blood with bacteria irrespective of the number. We achieved 91.3% accuracy in detecting bacteria in blood. We then proceeded to test whether OMIS can classify the samples semi-quantitatively into one of four categories based on the final concentration of bacteria in ml of blood. A 1 × 106, 1 × 105 and 1 × 104 CFU/mL corresponded to High (H), Medium (M) and Low (L) concentration, respectively. A total of 240 samples (60 samples per High, Medium, and Low as well as 60 samples of sterile blood) was imaged, and the data was analyzed. The average score of classification of samples in the correct category (N, L, M, H) one-by-one was 94.16 ± 2.95%. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values have been calculated, and their values for ANN and Random Forest Classifier (RFC) are presented in Table 1. By achieving high accuracy with both ANN and RFC, we proved that differentiating features exist between the samples with various concentrations of bacteria.

Table 1

Results of the OMIS-20ML evaluation based on 3 independent validation experiments. Results are presented as mean ± standard deviation for ANN and RFC. Since those two values of accuracy are very close our results strongly indicate that input data (interaction of light with paired and unpaired electrons) and output data (classification into sterile versus non-sterile blood (irrespective of the concentration of bacteria) is valid.

Discussion

A rapid detection of the presence of bacteria in the blood, their identification and the ability to quantify them is the key for successful application of appropriate antibiotics, and ultimately the key step for survival of patients with sepsis. In the present study, we provide proof-of-principle data for OMIS to detect the presence of clinical isolate of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) directly in human blood without sample processing, staining and need for isolation of the pathogen. We were able to achieve 91.3% accuracy in identifying presence of bacteria in blood and the average score of classification samples in the right category (N, L, M, H) one-by-one was 94.16 ± 2.95% for the NN algorithm, while for the RF algorithm accuracy was 93.33 ± 4.10%.

The “gold standard” clinical microbiological techniques such as plating, various stainings (i.e. Gram staining), and various biochemical tests, in combination with modern techniques such as whole genome sequencing, are very robust and can provide a myriad of information ranging from identification of specific strains, identification of antibiotic resistance genes, and even whole genome sequences. However, these procedures are lengthy, ranging from several hours to several of days, to yield clinically applicable results. The use of matrix assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF), rapid diagnostic tests, and whole genome sequencing, which are increasingly implemented in routine care, have yet to lead to clinically impactful results [16, 17]. One of the reasons for this is that despite the rapid diagnostic protocols in pathogen identification takes close to 48 h post-sample collection. Discussion of these techniques and their clinical impact have been presented elsewhere and are beyond the scope of this publication (please refer to Lamy et al., 2020 [18]). Interestingly, the use of artificial intelligence has resulted in an alternative approach for the detection of bacteria in blood. Instead of the identification of bacteria, these approaches are evaluating the host’s response to infectious agents and by mining host’s “omics” data can identify causative agents (i.e. bacteria vs. virus vs. fungi) [1921]. Development of artificial intelligence and machine learning have allowed the emergence of the several spectroscopy-based approaches for direct detection of pathogens in situ. Infrared and Raman spectroscopy are currently being developed for this purpose [2226]. While promising, both of these approaches are yet to be fully integrated in routine care, and face some of the same challenges discussed above for the military applicability.

This is a proof-of-principle study performed to test feasibility of using OMIS to detect pathogens in blood; several important questions remain unanswered. First, we evaluated OMIS for only on one bacterial species. Therefore, it is unknown at this time how effectively OMIS differentiates between different species of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria or how OMIS performs in the context of polymicrobial infections. We are currently planning studies that will address these questions with a focus on the ESKAPEE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, S. aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter species, and Escherichia coli) that are emerging as medical emergency due to their increasing antibiotic resistance using our large collection of multi-drug resistant (MDR) pathogens. Secondly, we have not determined the lower limit of detection, which is currently being investigated. Presently, 5–1000 CFU/mL of blood is the recommended cutoff for sepsis classification. We believe that the enhanced sensitivity of OMIS due to detection of unpaired and paired electrons of sample by light waves can be applied to identify bacterial samples in clinically relevant range. Additionally, unlike some other methods, OMIS does not damage the biological sample, and we plan to capitalize on this feature to determine the lower detection limit by plating the samples following imaging to generate a true positive control for construction of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Finally, one of the major benefits of using the artificial intelligence (AI) is that with enough training samples, software can be trained to “become expert” in any given categorization and CCD camera resolution restriction will derive limits of detection. The use of AI for mining the OMIS spectra, particularly ANN and RFC, which improves accuracy as the database of the analyzed spectra increases suggest that this is an achievable goal. There is a major limitation even for advanced optical technologies to detect directly in the blood when the concentration of bacteria is very low (5–1000 cells/mL of blood). For comparison, there are around 5 billion erythrocytes, 135–317 million platelets and 3–10 million white blood cells per ml of human adult blood. Sample processing to deplete blood cells (i.e. depletion of the red blood cell which have paramagnetic properties) may increase OMIS sensitivity and decrease the lower detection limit threshold. Moreover, combining OMIS with blood culturing to increase number of bacteria to a detectable level may be necessary. Similar approaches have been reportedly successful with other detection techniques. For example, the use of selective blood cell lysis, concentration of bacteria by centrifugation, and culturing microorganisms in broth resulted in increased sensitivity using surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) [22]. In this study, 17 blood clinical isolates were detected within 7 h [22]. At 2 CFU/mL all tested microorganisms had mean recoveries of 55%, but this increased to 72% when CFU was increased to 11 per mL. The priority of our ongoing efforts is to determine the lower limit of detection of bacteria in human blood, and based on these results, we may improve the method.

Conclusion

Our proof-of-concept study demonstrated that the OMIS can detect small number of bacteria in blood. The intended use of OMIS is to provide a rapid diagnostic tool for triage of patients with suspected bacteremia/sepsis and support antimicrobial stewardship early in the course of treatment, while providers are waiting for results from clinical microbiology laboratories.

Nomenclature of abbreviations

AI: Artificial intelligence

ANN: Artificial neural network

BC: Blood culture

CCD: Charged-coupled device

CDC: Center for Disease Control

CFU/mL: Colony Forming Units per Milliliter

ESKAPEE acronym: For Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter spp., and Escherichia coli, comprising high to critical drug-resistant, World Health Organization Critical Priority I and II pathogens

H: High

L: Low

M: Medium

MALDI-TOF-MS: Matrix Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization – Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry

ML: Machine learning

OMIS: Optomagnetic imaging spectroscopy

RFC: Random forest classifier

WRAIR: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research

References

  1. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, Bellomo R, Bernard GR, Chiche JD, Coopersmith CM, Hotchkiss RS (2016), The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). Jama 315, 8, 801–810. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0287. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Fleishmann C, Thomas-Rueddel DO, Hartmann M (2016), Hospital incidence and mortality rates of sepsis. An analysis of hospital episode (DRG) statistics in Germany from 2007 to 2013. Dtsch Arztebl Int 113, 10, 159–166. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2016.0159. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blyth DM, Yun HC, Tribble DR, Murray CK (2015), Lessons of war: Combat-related injury infections during the Vietnam War and Operation Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 79, S227–S235. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000000768. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, Friedrich ME, Iwashyna TJ, Phillips GS, Lemeshow S, Osborn T, Terry KM, Levy MM (2017), Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J Med 376, 23, 2235–2244. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1703058. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Retamar P, Portillo MM, López-Prieto MD, Rodríguez-López F, De Cueto M, García MV, Gómez MJ, Del Arco A, Muñoz A, Sánchez-Porto A, Torres-Tortosa M (2012), Impact of inadequate empirical therapy on the mortality of patients with bloodstream infections: a propensity score-based analysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56, 1, 472–478. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00462-11. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Liu VX, Fielding-Singh V, Greene JD, Baker JM, Iwashyna TJ, Bhattacharya J, Escobar GJ (2017), The timing of early antibiotics and hospital mortality in sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 196, 7, 856–863. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201609-1848OC. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Control, C.f.D. CDC: 1 in 3 antibiotic prescriptions unnecessary. January 1, 2016 [cited 2021 12/08/2021]; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/p0503-unnecessary-prescriptions.html. [Google Scholar]
  8. Lamy B, Dargère S, Arendrup MC, Parienti JJ, Tattevin P (2016), How to optimize the use of blood cultures for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections? A state-of-the art Front Microbiol 7, 697. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00697. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Menchinelli G, Liotti FM, Fiori B, De Angelis G, D’Inzeo T, Giordano L, Posteraro B, Sabbatucci M, Sanguinetti M, Spanu T (2019), In vitro evaluation of BACT/ALERT® VIRTUO®, BACT/ALERT 3D®, and BACTEC™ FX automated blood culture systems for detection of microbial pathogens using simulated human blood samples. Front Microbiol 10, 221. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00221. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Locke A, Fitzgerald S, Mahadevan-Jansen A (2020), Advances in optical detection of human-associated pathogenic bacteria. Molecules 25, 22, 5256. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25225256. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dragicevic A, Matija L, Krivokapic Z, Dimitrijevic I, Baros M, Koruga D (2019), Classification of healthy and cancer states of colon epithelial tissues using opto-magnetic imaging spectroscopy. J Med Biol Eng 39, 3, 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-018-0414-x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Razvi K, Dragicevic A, Madhavan K, Anu M, Hemingway S, Papic-Obradovic M, Koruga D (2016), Optomagnetic imaging spectroscopy (OMIS) as a novel method in the characterization of cervical smears. J Clin Oncol 34, 15_suppl, e23228. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.e23228. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Sedlar M, Nikolić GV, Dragičević A, Koruga D (2015), Opto-magnetic imaging spectroscopy in characterization of the tissues during hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Vojnosanit Pregl 72, 10, 922–927. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Jeftic B, Papic-Obradovic M, Muncan J, Matija L, Koruga D (2017), Optomagnetic imaging spectroscopy application in cervical dysplasia and cancer detection: comparation of stained and unstained papanicolaou smears. J Med Biol Eng 37, 6, 936–943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-017-0255-z. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Papic-Obradovic M, Kojic D, Matija AL (2010), Opto-magnetic method for epstein@ barr virus and cytomegalovirus detection in blood plasma samples. Acta Phys Pol A 117, 782–785. https://doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.117.782. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Huang AM, Newton D, Kunapuli A, Gandhi TN, Washer LL, Isip J, Collins CD, Nagel JL (2013), Impact of rapid organism identification via matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight combined with antimicrobial stewardship team intervention in adult patients with bacteremia and candidemia. Clin Infect Dis 57, 9, 1237–1245. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cit498. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Beuving J, Wolffs PF, Hansen WL, Stobberingh EE, Bruggeman CA, Kessels A, Verbon A (2015), Impact of same-day antibiotic susceptibility testing on time to appropriate antibiotic treatment of patients with bacteraemia: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 34, 4, 831–838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-014-2299-0. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lamy B, Sundqvist M, Idelevich EA (2020), Bloodstream infections – Standard and progress in pathogen diagnostics. Clin Microbiol Infect 26, 2, 142–150. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.11.017. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Liu X, Ren H, Peng D (2014), Sepsis biomarkers: an omics perspective. Front Med 8, 1, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11684-014-0318-2. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Langley RJ, Wong HR (2017), Early diagnosis of sepsis: Is an integrated omics approach the way forward? Mol Diagn Ther 21, 5, 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40291-017-0282-z. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Mangioni D, Peri AM, Rossolini GM, Viaggi B, Perno CF, Gori A, Bandera A (2019), Toward rapid sepsis diagnosis and patient stratification: What’s new from microbiology and omics science. J Infect Dis 221, 7, 1039–1047. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiz585%J. [Google Scholar]
  22. Boardman AK, Wong WS, Premasiri WR, Ziegler LD, Lee JC, Miljkovic M, Klapperich CM, Sharon A, Sauer-Budge AF (2016), Rapid detection of bacteria from blood with surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Anal Chem 8816, 8026–8035. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b01273. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Cheng I, Chen TY, Lu RJ, Wu HW (2014), Rapid identification of bacteria utilizing amplified dielectrophoretic force-assisted nanoparticle-induced surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Nanoscale Res Lett 9, 1, 324. https://doi.org/10.1186/1556-276x-9-324. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Cheng IF, Chang HC, Chen TY, Hu C, Yang FL (2013), Rapid (<5 min) identification of pathogen in human blood by electrokinetic concentration and surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Sci Rep 3, 2365. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02365. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Novais Â, Freitas AR, Rodrigues C, Peixe L (2019), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy: unlocking fundamentals and prospects for bacterial strain typing. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 38, 3, 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-018-3431-3. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lasch P, Naumann D (2015), Infrared spectroscopy in microbiology, in: RA Meyers (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470027318.a0117.pub2. [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Garry B, Stoiljkovic N, Jovic Z, Pavlovic R, Getnet D, et al. 2022. Optomagnetic Imaging Spectroscopy (OMIS) for in situ detection of bacteria in blood – feasibility study. 4open, 5, 10.

All Tables

Table 1

Results of the OMIS-20ML evaluation based on 3 independent validation experiments. Results are presented as mean ± standard deviation for ANN and RFC. Since those two values of accuracy are very close our results strongly indicate that input data (interaction of light with paired and unpaired electrons) and output data (classification into sterile versus non-sterile blood (irrespective of the concentration of bacteria) is valid.

All Figures

thumbnail Figure 1

Schematic representation of conventional imaging spectroscopy using diffuse light (left) and special imaging spectroscopy using polarized light (right). The relative positions of light sources for the two imaging spectroscopies are indicated. Reflected diffuse white light arises from the Light source (6 light-emitting diodes arranged in the circle) perpendicular to the sample and reflected polarized light (right) arises from the light source positioned at Brewster’s angle (for biological tissues, approximately 530 degrees). The degree of light polarization is 95.4%, while angular diffusion of the light source is ± 1:6 (the difference between the angles θ1 and θ2), which through convolution spectra gives Opto-magnetic Imaging Spectroscopy.

In the text
thumbnail Figure 2

Workflow of the OMIS imaging and data analysis. Step 1 – set up experiment in laboratory; Step 2 – sampling blood; Step 3 – placement of 50 μL of blood on glass slide; Step 4 – cover the blood using glass cover slip; Step 5 – positioning of the slide in the OMIS20-ML slide

In the text
thumbnail Figure 3

Representative diagram of results for all classes of samples analyzed with significant wavelengths used for differentiation of samples.

In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.