The Experts below are selected from a list of 312 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Giuseppe Lippi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Mass spectrometry and total Laboratory Automation: opportunities and drawbacks.
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2020Co-Authors: Gian Luca Salvagno, Elisa Danese, Giuseppe LippiAbstract:The diffusion of Laboratory Automation, initiated nearly 50 years ago with consolidation of preanalytical, clinical chemistry and immunochemistry workstations, is now also gradually embracing mass spectrometry (MS). As for other diagnostic disciplines, the Automation of MS carries many advantages, such as efficient personnel management (i.e. improving working atmosphere by decreasing manual activities, lowering health risks, simplifying staff training), better organization (i.e. reducing workloads, improving inventory handling, increasing analytical process standardization) and the possibility to reduce the number of platforms. The development and integration of different technologies into automated MS analyzers will also generate technical and practical advantages, such as prepackaged and ready-to-use reagents, automated dispensing, incubation and measurement, automated sample processing (e.g. system fit for many models of Laboratory Automation, bar code readers), multiplex testing, automatic data processing, also including quality control assessment, and automated validation/interpretation (e.g. autoverification). A new generation of preanalytical workstations, which can be directly connected to MS systems, will allow the Automation of manual extraction and elimination of time-consuming activities, such as tube labeling and capping/decapping. The use of automated liquid-handling platform for pipetting samples, along with addition of internal standards, may then enable the optimization of some steps of extraction and protein precipitation, thus decreasing turnaround time and increasing throughput in MS testing. Therefore, this focused review is aimed at providing a brief update on the importance of consolidation and integration of MS platforms in Laboratory Automation.
-
Advantages and limitations of total Laboratory Automation: a personal overview.
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2019Co-Authors: Giuseppe Lippi, Giorgio Da RinAbstract:Automation is considered one of the most important breakthroughs in the recent history of Laboratory diagnostics. In a model of total Laboratory Automation (TLA), many analyzers performing different types of tests on different sample matrices are physically integrated as modular systems or physically connected by assembly lines. The opportunity to integrate multiple diagnostic specialties to one single track seems effective to improve efficiency, organization, standardization, quality and safety of Laboratory testing, whilst also providing a significant return of investment on the long-term and enabling staff requalification. On the other hand, developing a model of TLA also presents some potential problems, mainly represented by higher initial costs, enhanced expenditure for supplies, space requirements and infrastructure constraints, staff overcrowding, increased generation of noise and heat, higher risk of downtime, psychological dependence, critical issues for biospecimen management, disruption of staff trained in specific technologies, along with the risk of transition toward a manufacturer's-driven Laboratory. As many ongoing technological innovations coupled with the current scenario, profoundly driven by cost-containment policies, will promote further diffusion of Laboratory Automation in the foreseeable future, here we provide a personal overview on some potential advantages and limitations of TLA.
-
Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing Total Laboratory Automation.
Clinical chemistry, 2018Co-Authors: Jonathan R. Genzen, Giuseppe Lippi, Charles D. Hawker, Robin A. Felder, Carey-ann D. Burnham, Octavia M. Peck PalmerAbstract:In total Laboratory Automation (TLA)10, preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic phases of Laboratory testing may be combined into an integrated system such that specimens are processed, tested, and even stored with minimal user intervention. Given the pressures of an ongoing workforce shortage of Laboratory professionals, Laboratory Automation offers an attractive, albeit expensive, solution that laboratories are increasingly considering in planning for future growth and work flow requirements. In an ideal system, TLA handles routine, repetitive steps—leveraging the quality and efficiency obtainable in the manufacturing industry and freeing operators to focus on specialized testing that benefits from their unique training and expertise. A variety of Laboratory Automation solutions have been available globally for decades, with technologies that have advanced based on engineering innovation and practical trial and error. To address the difficulties and benefits involved in implementing and sustaining TLA in a clinical Laboratory setting, we invited a group of 5 experts to share their perspectives on Laboratory Automation and provide real-world advice based on their experiences with TLA at their respective facilities. In what ways has Automation impacted your clinical Laboratory? Giuseppe Lippi: Automation has completely revolutionized the organization of my Laboratory. The main advantages that we have observed are improved standardization, more simplified and efficient approaches for managing work flow, improvement in the performance of complex tests, better high-volume test management, shorter turnaround time (TAT) by elimination of some manually intensive preanalytical steps, provision of valuable walk-away time, and reduction of personnel costs (i.e., Laboratory technicians and subsidiary staff), along with notable reductions in errors and biological risks attributable to manual handling of specimens. Another important advantage is represented by more efficient management of reruns and reflex testing, which can now be performed automatically with little user action needed. Carey-Ann Burnham: Historically, the clinical microbiology Laboratory has lagged …
-
Integration of Diagnostic Microbiology in a Model of Total Laboratory Automation.
Laboratory Medicine, 2015Co-Authors: Giorgio Da Rin, Maira Zoppelletto, Giuseppe LippiAbstract:Background: Although Automation has become widely utilized in certain areas of diagnostic testing, its adoption in diagnostic microbiology has proceeded much more slowly. Objective: To describe our real-world experience of integrating an automated instrument for diagnostic microbiology (Walk-Away Specimen Processor, WASPLab) within a model of total Laboratory Automation (TLA). Methods: The implementation process was divided into 2 phases. The former period, lasting approximately 6 weeks, entailed the installation of the WASPLab processor to operate as a stand-alone instrumentation, whereas the latter, lasting approximately 2 weeks, involved physical connection of the WASPLab with the Automation. Results: Using the WASPLab instrument in conjunction with the TLA model, we obtained a time savings equivalent to the work of 1.2 full-time Laboratory technicians for diagnostic microbiology. The connection of WASPLab to TLA allowed its management by a generalist or clinical chemistry technician, with no need for microbiology skills on the part of either worker. Hence, diagnostic microbiology could be performed by the staff that is already using the TLA, extending their activities to include processing urgent clinical chemistry and hematology specimens. The time to result was also substantially improved. Conclusions: According to our experience, using the WASPLab instrument as part of a TLA in diagnostic microbiology holds great promise for optimizing Laboratory workflow and improving the quality of testing. * Abbreviations : TLA : total Laboratory Automation MALDI-TOF : matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight FTE : full-time equivalent TAT : turnaround time BIN : bulk input module HST : hematology system transport HPLC : high-performance liquid chromatography ESR : erythrocyte sedimentation rate HEPA : high-efficiency particulate arrestance LIS : Laboratory information system EJI : economic justification index SJI : strategic justification index US$ : United States dollars
-
total Laboratory Automation of routine hemostasis testing
Journal of Laboratory Automation, 2014Co-Authors: Giorgio Da Rin, Giuseppe LippiAbstract:The aim of this study was to assess whether preanalytical management of coagulation samples through an open total Laboratory Automation system may impair the reliability of routine hemostasis tests as compared with loading of centrifuged plasma specimens directly into the coagulation analyzer for routine testing. Forty inpatient samples were divided into two aliquots. The former was centrifuged and directly loaded in a hemostasis analyzer, whereas the latter was entered into a 16.5 m long track-line system (FlexLab), where it was automatically centrifuged and conveyed to the same coagulation analyzer. An analytically significant difference was found between values of samples directly loaded in the coagulation analyzer and those entered in the track-line system for prothombin time (19.6 ± 1.7 versus 19.2 ± 1.6 s; p < 0.001) and activated partial thromboplastin time (38.0 ± 1.4 versus 37.5 ± 1.3 s; p = 0.021) but not for fibrinogen (305 ± 12 versus 304 ± 12 mg/dL; p = 0.97). Nevertheless, the mean percentage bias of prothombin time (-1.8%), activated partial thromboplastin time (-1.0%), and fibrinogen (0.4%) was modest and always lower than the total allowable error and was thereby considered not clinically significant. The results of this study confirm that connection of coagulation analyzers to track-line systems is a viable solution for modern clinical laboratories.
Nathan J. Hillson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
PR-PR: Cross-Platform Laboratory Automation System
ACS synthetic biology, 2014Co-Authors: Gregory Linshiz, Nina Stawski, Sean Poust, Jay D Keasling, Garima Goyal, Monica Sharma, Vivek K. Mutalik, Nathan J. HillsonAbstract:To enable protocol standardization, sharing, and efficient implementation across Laboratory Automation platforms, we have further developed the PR-PR open-source high-level biology-friendly robot programming language as a cross-platform Laboratory Automation system. Beyond liquid-handling robotics, PR-PR now supports microfluidic and microscopy platforms, as well as protocol translation into human languages, such as English. While the same set of basic PR-PR commands and features are available for each supported platform, the underlying optimization and translation modules vary from platform to platform. Here, we describe these further developments to PR-PR, and demonstrate the experimental implementation and validation of PR-PR protocols for combinatorial modified Golden Gate DNA assembly across liquid-handling robotic, microfluidic, and manual platforms. To further test PR-PR cross-platform performance, we then implement and assess PR-PR protocols for Kunkel DNA mutagenesis and hierarchical Gibson DNA assembly for microfluidic and manual platforms.
-
PaR-PaR Laboratory Automation platform
ACS Synthetic Biology, 2013Co-Authors: Gregory Linshiz, Nina Stawski, Sean Poust, Changhao Bi, Jay D Keasling, Nathan J. HillsonAbstract:Labor-intensive multistep biological tasks, such as the construction and cloning of DNA molecules, are prime candidates for Laboratory Automation. Flexible and biology-friendly operation of robotic equipment is key to its successful integration in biological laboratories, and the efforts required to operate a robot must be much smaller than the alternative manual lab work. To achieve these goals, a simple high-level biology-friendly robot programming language is needed. We have developed and experimentally validated such a language: Programming a Robot (PaR-PaR). The syntax and compiler for the language are based on computer science principles and a deep understanding of biological workflows. PaR-PaR allows researchers to use liquid-handling robots effectively, enabling experiments that would not have been considered previously. After minimal training, a biologist can independently write complicated protocols for a robot within an hour. Adoption of PaR-PaR as a standard cross-platform language would enable hand-written or software-generated robotic protocols to be shared across laboratories.
R.d Mcdowall - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Risk Management for Laboratory Automation Projects
Journal of the Association for Laboratory Automation, 2004Co-Authors: R.d McdowallAbstract:This tutorial outlines some of the common risks that may be associated throughout the development and implementation of a Laboratory Automation project such as a Laboratory information management system (LIMS) or another Automation project. It presents a scheme for undertaking risk management to help assess and mitigate the degree of risk associated with each of these factors. In the case of high-risk factors, suggestions are presented to manage or help avoid the problem.Risk management is an ongoing process. It begins at the start of a project and should be reassessed at intervals throughout the project to re-evaluate existing risks and to see if any factors have changed or new ones have emerged.
-
Management attitudes in Laboratory Automation projects and quality programmes
Laboratory Automation & Information Management, 1998Co-Authors: José Manuel Andrade, R.d McdowallAbstract:Abstract For Laboratory Automation and quality schemes to succeed, there must be management commitment to the project. To get significant improvements in Laboratory performance, critical changes are needed which require open-minded and team approaches. Unless this happens, the project will fail. This paper explores the reasons why older style managers fail to support these projects. Radical changes in management are proposed; from direction to teamwork and commitment; from power to delegated authority and empowerment. This already happens in the leading companies, but many organisations have older management styles which should change.
-
Laboratory Automation : QUO VADIS ?
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 1994Co-Authors: R.d McdowallAbstract:Abstract The future of Laboratory Automation is debated. The current status of Laboratory Automation is analysed and suggestions are made for the future. Laboratory Automation should be organised globally within companies; have its own strategy which defines individual projects with their own cost codes. Organisationally, Laboratory Automation should have its own staff with a dedicated performance appraisal scheme. An individual Automation project should be resourced professionally by both the line function and the Automation specialists. To measure the success and to monitor and control the project, the performance metrics of the finished system should be defined before work on the project commences.
-
The evaluation and management of risk during a Laboratory information management system or Laboratory Automation project
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 1993Co-Authors: R.d McdowallAbstract:Abstract This tutorial outlines some of the common risks that may be associated throughout the development and implementation of a Laboratory information management system or a Laboratory Automation project. It presents a scheme for undertaking risk analysis and evaluation to help assess the degree of risk associated with each of these factors. In the case of high risk factors, suggestions are presented to manage or help avoid the problem. Risk assessment should be carried out at the start of a project and at intervals throughout the project to re-evaluate and see if any factors have changed or new ones have emerged.
-
Strategic approaches to Laboratory Automation
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 1992Co-Authors: R.d McdowallAbstract:Abstract Laboratory Automation is reviewed from the perspectives of the current definitions. It is concluded that a new specific definition of the term is required to understand the problems posed. This definition consists of four elements: instrument Automation, communications, data-to-information conversion and information management. From the understanding engendered by this definition, a Laboratory is able to formulate a strategic plan under which all Automation projects can be proposed, defined and implemented.
Gregory Linshiz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
PR-PR: Cross-Platform Laboratory Automation System
ACS synthetic biology, 2014Co-Authors: Gregory Linshiz, Nina Stawski, Sean Poust, Jay D Keasling, Garima Goyal, Monica Sharma, Vivek K. Mutalik, Nathan J. HillsonAbstract:To enable protocol standardization, sharing, and efficient implementation across Laboratory Automation platforms, we have further developed the PR-PR open-source high-level biology-friendly robot programming language as a cross-platform Laboratory Automation system. Beyond liquid-handling robotics, PR-PR now supports microfluidic and microscopy platforms, as well as protocol translation into human languages, such as English. While the same set of basic PR-PR commands and features are available for each supported platform, the underlying optimization and translation modules vary from platform to platform. Here, we describe these further developments to PR-PR, and demonstrate the experimental implementation and validation of PR-PR protocols for combinatorial modified Golden Gate DNA assembly across liquid-handling robotic, microfluidic, and manual platforms. To further test PR-PR cross-platform performance, we then implement and assess PR-PR protocols for Kunkel DNA mutagenesis and hierarchical Gibson DNA assembly for microfluidic and manual platforms.
-
PaR-PaR Laboratory Automation platform
ACS Synthetic Biology, 2013Co-Authors: Gregory Linshiz, Nina Stawski, Sean Poust, Changhao Bi, Jay D Keasling, Nathan J. HillsonAbstract:Labor-intensive multistep biological tasks, such as the construction and cloning of DNA molecules, are prime candidates for Laboratory Automation. Flexible and biology-friendly operation of robotic equipment is key to its successful integration in biological laboratories, and the efforts required to operate a robot must be much smaller than the alternative manual lab work. To achieve these goals, a simple high-level biology-friendly robot programming language is needed. We have developed and experimentally validated such a language: Programming a Robot (PaR-PaR). The syntax and compiler for the language are based on computer science principles and a deep understanding of biological workflows. PaR-PaR allows researchers to use liquid-handling robots effectively, enabling experiments that would not have been considered previously. After minimal training, a biologist can independently write complicated protocols for a robot within an hour. Adoption of PaR-PaR as a standard cross-platform language would enable hand-written or software-generated robotic protocols to be shared across laboratories.
Jay D Keasling - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
PR-PR: Cross-Platform Laboratory Automation System
ACS synthetic biology, 2014Co-Authors: Gregory Linshiz, Nina Stawski, Sean Poust, Jay D Keasling, Garima Goyal, Monica Sharma, Vivek K. Mutalik, Nathan J. HillsonAbstract:To enable protocol standardization, sharing, and efficient implementation across Laboratory Automation platforms, we have further developed the PR-PR open-source high-level biology-friendly robot programming language as a cross-platform Laboratory Automation system. Beyond liquid-handling robotics, PR-PR now supports microfluidic and microscopy platforms, as well as protocol translation into human languages, such as English. While the same set of basic PR-PR commands and features are available for each supported platform, the underlying optimization and translation modules vary from platform to platform. Here, we describe these further developments to PR-PR, and demonstrate the experimental implementation and validation of PR-PR protocols for combinatorial modified Golden Gate DNA assembly across liquid-handling robotic, microfluidic, and manual platforms. To further test PR-PR cross-platform performance, we then implement and assess PR-PR protocols for Kunkel DNA mutagenesis and hierarchical Gibson DNA assembly for microfluidic and manual platforms.
-
PaR-PaR Laboratory Automation platform
ACS Synthetic Biology, 2013Co-Authors: Gregory Linshiz, Nina Stawski, Sean Poust, Changhao Bi, Jay D Keasling, Nathan J. HillsonAbstract:Labor-intensive multistep biological tasks, such as the construction and cloning of DNA molecules, are prime candidates for Laboratory Automation. Flexible and biology-friendly operation of robotic equipment is key to its successful integration in biological laboratories, and the efforts required to operate a robot must be much smaller than the alternative manual lab work. To achieve these goals, a simple high-level biology-friendly robot programming language is needed. We have developed and experimentally validated such a language: Programming a Robot (PaR-PaR). The syntax and compiler for the language are based on computer science principles and a deep understanding of biological workflows. PaR-PaR allows researchers to use liquid-handling robots effectively, enabling experiments that would not have been considered previously. After minimal training, a biologist can independently write complicated protocols for a robot within an hour. Adoption of PaR-PaR as a standard cross-platform language would enable hand-written or software-generated robotic protocols to be shared across laboratories.
