Epidemiology, treatment and outcome of candidemia: a five‐year review at three Canadian hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine treatment regimens and epidemiological patterns in the occurrence of candidemia, a review of cases occurring from 1992 to 1996 in three large Canadian hospitals, University of Alberta Hospital (UAH) and Royal Alexandra Hospital (RAH), Edmonton, and Foothills Medical Center (FMC), Calgary, was carried out. Cases were detected by reviewing microbiology laboratory records. There were 202 cases in all (UAH 104, FMC 70, RAH 28). For the five study years the candidemia rate was 4.5/10 000 discharges (UAH 7.6, FMC 4.9, and RAH 1.7; P < 0.05 for all interhospital comparisons). The rate remained stable between 1992 and 1995 but rose dramatically in 1996 to 7.6/10 000 (P < 0.01 compared to 1995) as a result of increases at UAH and RAH. Of the 208 species identified, Candida albicans accounted for 135 (65%). During hospitalization 93 (46%) patients died. Species did not influence outcome. Antifungal treatment with fluconazole alone was given to 14% of patients, and increased in frequency throughout the study. No antifungal therapy was given to 47 patients (23%). This group had a much higher mortality (68%) than those who received treatment (39% P < 0.01). Twenty of the untreated patients had already died by the time the blood culture had been reported as growing a yeast. Candidemia rates vary significantly between hospitals and increased in some but not all over the five study years. As many patients with candidemia will have died by the time laboratory diagnosis is made, presumptive antifungal therapy in high-risk patients may be necessary if outcome is to be improved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".