Ten-year experience with fungal peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients: antifungal susceptibility patterns in a North-American center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical and microbiological features associated with fungal peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients at Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, from August 1996 to July 2006. METHODS: Cases were retrieved from the microbiology laboratory culture registry. Antifungal susceptibility was determined by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute M27A3 method. RESULTS: Among 288 PD patients (total follow-up of 7258 patient-months), nine were found with fungal peritonitis. Candida spp were identified in all of them, with a majority of non-albicans Candida species. Resistance to fluconazole, itraconazole, or voriconazole was as frequent as potential resistance to amphotericin B. No isolate was resistant to caspofungin and one was resistant to micafungin. Prior bacterial peritonitis was frequent (67%). All patients had their PD catheter removed and all of them survived. CONCLUSIONS: In our institution, fungal peritonitis in PD patients is rare. All cases were caused by Candida species. Variable susceptibility patterns were observed, which may influence the initial empirical antifungal therapy and underscore the importance of individual speciation and susceptibility testing of invasive Candida isolates.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".