Positive Fungal Cultures in Burn Patients: A Multicenter Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fungal infections are increasingly common in burn patients. We performed this study to determine the incidence and outcomes of fungal cultures in acutely burned patients. Members of the American Burn Association's Multicenter Trials Group were asked to review patients admitted during 2002-2003 who developed one or more cultures positive for fungal organisms. Data on demographics, site(s), species and number of cultures, and presence of risk factors for fungal infections were collected. Patients were categorized as untreated (including prophylactic topical antifungals therapy), nonsystemic treatment (nonprophylactic topical antifungal therapy, surgery, removal of foreign bodies), or systemic treatment (enteral or parenteral therapy). Fifteen institutions reviewed 6918 patients, of whom 435 (6.3%) had positive fungal cultures. These patients had mean age of 33.2 +/- 23.6 years, burn size of 34.8 +/- 22.7%TBSA, and 38% had inhalation injuries. Organisms included Candida species (371 patients; 85%), yeast non-Candida (93 patients, 21%), Aspergillus (60 patients, 14%), other mold (39 patients, 9.0%), and others (6 patients, 1.4%). Systemically treated patients were older, had larger burns, more inhalation injuries, more risk factors, a higher incidence of multiple positive cultures, and significantly increased mortality (21.2%), compared with nonsystemic (mortality 5.0%) or untreated patients (mortality 7.8%). In multivariate analysis, increasing age and burn size, number of culture sites, and cultures positive for Aspergillus or other mold correlated with mortality. Positive fungal cultures occur frequently in patients with large burns. The low mortality for untreated patients suggests that appropriate clinical judgment was used in most treatment decisions. Nonetheless, indications for treatment of fungal isolates in burn patients remain unclear, and should be developed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".