Requirement for fungal prophylaxis in high-risk surgical patients: a randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background In previous studies the authors have selected patients and surgical procedures with a high risk of fungal infection. Whether these patients and procedures require fungal prophylaxis was studied. Methods From June to December 1999, 850 surgical patients from two university hospitals were enrolled in a prospective open randomized study. Fifty were selected according to demographics (age, sex, co-morbidity) and surgical procedures (defined by GDRs and ICD9-CM) as at high risk of fungal infection according to a previously defined algorithm (presented to the Surgical Infection Society of Europe 1999). In these 50 patients the CD lymphocyte population was recollected, and urine, blood, sputum and wound (if infected) cultures were performed. Then, 25 were treated with nystatin wash and swallow, and the others with placebo. Fungal infection and fungal colonization were defined and used as the endpoint of the study. Results Patients not selected for the study did not develop fungal infection. Of the high-risk patients, 20 presented with fungal colonization (12 urine, seven wound and five bloodstream cultures) and 12 presented with subsequent fungal infections. Of these 20 colonized patients, only those with nystatin prophylaxis did not require fungal treatment, whereas controls required treatment. CD4 lymphocyte recount (below 300) was uniformly decreased in all patients with fungal infection. Conclusion Immunodepressed patients at high risk with concomitant fungal colonization develop fungal infections 2–5 days after high-risk surgical procedures. Nystatin prophylaxis in such patients may reduce the degree and severity of fungal infection. If fungal colonization is present and the CD4 lymphocyte count is below 300, fungal treatment might be advisable.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".