Why the hype?, page-46

Hey vmp. Love the photos. Look delicious. Good restaurant for a micro conference!!!

Having read through the lbt article posted above, my understanding is that our tech IS different. It is more sophisticated than any one elses. To clarify using urine culture as an example 75% of plates tested were negative. Apas can report these. Apas is able to report organism from culture (blood and mac agar ONLY. no chromogenic agar!!! Important.) It is reporting a species too. Not a genus. Or not just coliform. Some results are sent for human review. The reviews mostly agreed with apas. Even a 99% accurate system would need review of 10% as qc. Like in cytology..... this system is capable of reporting organisms from standard agar to a species level with no human input and no further id.....
In conclusion -: time saved as 75% of work is neg. Out with no human input. Time saved when cultures not for review go out. No human input. Review plates checked by a human then go out. And a fool proof system would still need 10% qc check.
Thoughts??? Am I wrong?

Cheers