If we could make farmers stop using antibiotics on all their livestock as growth promoters, maybe we'd be all set.

As a lab tech, I just look at this, and I think of fewer blood cultures, and I shed a tear of joy

A diagnostic test developed by Stanford Medicine scientists can separate bacterial and viral infections with 90% accuracy, the first to meet standards set by the World Health Organization

It is the first diagnostic test to meet (and exceed) the standards proposed by the World Health Organization and the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics.

“Antimicrobial resistance is continuously rising, so there has been a lot of effort to reduce inappropriate antibiotic usage,” said Purvesh Khatri, PhD, associate professor of medicine and biomedical data science, and the senior author of the paper. “Accurately diagnosing whether a patient has a bacterial or viral infection is one of the biggest global health challenges.”

Existing methods include growing the pathogen in a petri dish, which takes several days, or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, which requires knowing the specific pathogen to look for.

That’s why in many cases, “Doctors prescribe antibiotics empirically,” Khatri said. “They say, ‘We’re going to give you an antibiotic and if you get better, you had a bacterial infection. If you don’t, you have a viral infection, and we’ll stop the antibiotic.’”

The following submission statement was provided by /u/hibott77:

A diagnostic test developed by Stanford Medicine scientists can separate bacterial and viral infections with 90% accuracy, the first to meet standards set by the World Health Organization

It is the first diagnostic test to meet (and exceed) the standards proposed by the World Health Organization and the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics.

“Antimicrobial resistance is continuously rising, so there has been a lot of effort to reduce inappropriate antibiotic usage,” said Purvesh Khatri, PhD, associate professor of medicine and biomedical data science, and the senior author of the paper. “Accurately diagnosing whether a patient has a bacterial or viral infection is one of the biggest global health challenges.”

Existing methods include growing the pathogen in a petri dish, which takes several days, or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, which requires knowing the specific pathogen to look for.

That’s why in many cases, “Doctors prescribe antibiotics empirically,” Khatri said. “They say, ‘We’re going to give you an antibiotic and if you get better, you had a bacterial infection. If you don’t, you have a viral infection, and we’ll stop the antibiotic.’”

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10sf9ix/new_blood_test_to_identify_infections_could/j7127a3/

The marketing hype is strong with this one. CRP already exists, is much more accessible and cheaper than this, and is conveniently missing from the "existing methods" section of the article. As are all the other methods that doctors actually use.

The antiobiotic overuse problem has many causes, but a technical inability to distinguish bacterial and viral infections is not one of them. That's been pretty much solved a long time ago

Edit to add: the article is also completely incorrect on what "empirical" antiobiotic treatment is, again in a way that makes the current situation sound much worse than it is

I call BS. For $400 after insurance, my doctor can take one look at me from across the room and determine it's bacterial. then proceed to tell me to gtfo and not waste her time. Fuck the US healthcare.