Treatment and outcomes of invasive fusariosis: review of 65 cases from the <scp>PATH</scp> Alliance<sup>®</sup> registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasive Fusarium infections occur in immunosuppressed patients, especially those with haematological malignancies. We conducted a descriptive analysis of data from patients with invasive fusariosis identified in the Prospective Antifungal Therapy Alliance registry, which collected data on invasive fungal infections in the United States and Canada from 2004 to 2008. In this series of 65 patients with proven (83.1%) and probable (16.9%) invasive fusariosis, the most common underlying condition was haematological malignancy, in which neutropenia and corticosteroid usage frequently occurred. Seven patients with invasive Fusarium infections had cross-reactive galactomannan assay results. The survival rate for all patients at 90 days was 44%, which was an improvement compared with historical data. Disseminated disease occurred frequently (35.4%), and patients with and without disseminated disease had survival rates of 33% and 50%, respectively. Posaconazole and voriconazole were the most frequently employed therapies and may be linked to the improved survival rate observed in this patient series. In summary, patients with invasive Fusarium infections continue to have high fatality rates, especially those with disseminated disease. Fusarium infections should be strongly considered in the absence of Aspergillus isolation in patients at high risk of mould infections with positive galactomannan assay test results.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".