Pulmonary Invasive Aspergillosis and Candidiasis in Immunocompromised Patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) findings of pulmonary invasive aspergillosis and candidiasis in immunocompromised patients. The study included 54 immunocompromised patients (32 men, 22 women; 10 to 68 years of age, median 40 years) with a diagnosis of Aspergillus (n=32) or Candida (n=22) pulmonary infection obtained by sputum culture, bronchoalveolar lavage culture, transbronchial biopsy, surgical biopsy, or autopsy. High-resolution CT images were assessed for the presence and distribution of nodules, consolidation and ground-glass opacities. Presence of the CT halo sign and cavitation was also recorded and the overall distribution of abnormalities was assessed. Comparison was made using the Fisher exact test. Nodules were the most common finding, present in 84% (27 of 32) of patients with aspergillosis and 95% (21 of 22) of patients with candidiasis (P>0.3, Fisher exact test). Centrilobular nodules were more common in patients with aspergillosis (26 of 27, 96%) than in those with candidiasis (11 of 21, 52%) (P<0.001) and random nodules more common in candidiasis (10 of 21, 48%) than in aspergillosis (1 of 27, 4%) (P<0.001). Presence of the CT halo sign, cavitation, and ground-glass opacities was similar in both groups. In summary, pulmonary aspergillosis and candidiasis in immunocompromised patients manifest with similar high-resolution CT findings. Centrilobular nodules and consolidation are more common in aspergillosis. The presence of halo sign or cavitation is not helpful in the differential diagnosis.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it