Management of invasive candidiasis and candidemia in adult non-neutropenic intensive care unit patients: Part I. Epidemiology and diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Invasive candidiasis and candidemia are frequently encountered in the nosocomial setting, particularly in the intensive care unit (ICU). OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: To review the current management of invasive candidiasis and candidemia in non-neutropenic adult ICU patients based on a review of the literature and a European expert panel discussion. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Candida albicans remains the most frequently isolated fungal species followed by C. glabrata. The diagnosis of invasive candidiasis involves both clinical and laboratory parameters, but neither of these are specific. One of the main features in diagnosis is the evaluation of risk factor for infection which will identify patients in need of pre-emptive or empiric treatment. Clinical scores were built from those risk factors. Among laboratory diagnosis, a positive blood culture from a normally sterile site provides positive evidence. Surrogate markers have also been proposed like 1,3 beta-D: glucan level, mannans, or PCR testing. Invasive candidiasis and candidemia is a growing concern in the ICU, apart from cases with positive blood cultures or fluid/tissue biopsy, diagnosis is neither sensitive nor specific. The diagnosis remains difficult and is usually based on the evaluation of risk factors.
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 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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".