Background Culture-based wound infection diagnostics have well-recognized limitations in detecting fastidious, anaerobic, or polymicrobial pathogens. This study compared the performance of a PCR wound panel with traditional culture.

Methods Dual-swab specimens from 93 clinical wound cases underwent both culture and PCR testing. Analyses included organism-level concordance, Gram stain correlation, and resistance gene detection. Logistic regression, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC), and latent class analysis (LCA) were used to evaluate diagnostic performance.

Results Under the conventional (culture-referenced) framework, PCR sensitivity was 98.3% and specificity was 73.5%. LCA (model M3) estimated PCR sensitivity at 95.6% and specificity at 91%. PCR detected 110 clinically significant pathogens missed or ambiguously reported (∼ 30%) by culture. A logistic model incorporating 16S rRNA Ct values and Gram morphology found that 73.8% of PCR-only detections had infection probabilities >75%. Applying these probabilities and resistance gene codetection data in a symmetric framework improved PCR specificity from 45% to 86% with 95% sensitivity, while culture specificity remained high but suffered notable underdetection of known clinically significant pathogens. Many PCR-only detections, especially in polymicrobial wounds, were supported by high bacterial burden, Gram concordance, and resistance markers. For three key pathogens (S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, S. agalactiae), analysis showed PCR specificity ≥95% when compared to culture, suggesting that culture underdetection may partly reflect colony selection and prioritization during workup.

Conclusion These results underscore the known limitations of culture in resolving polymicrobial podiatric wound infections and highlight PCR’s role in providing significantly faster and more comprehensive organism-level detection to guide clinical decisions.

MD is a direct member of BioExcel Diagnostics, LLC K.H.L & H.L.M are indirect membersof BioExcel Diagnostics, LLC

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board (IRB) of BioExcel Diagnostics waived ethical approval for this study, as all work was performed on de-identified, non-trackable data collected as part of routine quality assurance processes at BioExcel Diagnostics.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript