<i>Candida glabrata</i>Esophagitis: Are We Seeing the Emergence of a New Azole-Resistant Pathogen?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Candida glabrata (C. glabrata) has become a recognized pathogen in fungal esophagitis. A proportion of these isolates are azole-resistant which may have treatment implications. Variability in the prevalence of this organism exists in the limited data available. Objective. To determine the incidence of C. glabrata esophagitis in a North American hospital setting and to highlight factors that may predispose patients to this condition. Methods. Patient charts were collected from January 1, 2009 to July 30, 2011. Any charts of patients identified as having esophagitis with a positive fungal culture were reviewed for the species of Candida and the presence of factors that would predispose them to esophageal candidiasis. Results. The prevalence of Candida esophagitis based on culture was 2.2% (37 subjects). C. glabrata was the 2nd most prevalent pathogen identified (24.3% or 9 subjects). Of the C. glabrata cohort, all patients had at least one factor predisposing them to candidiasis. Conclusion. C. glabrata esophagitis makes up a large portion of the candidal esophagitis seen in hospital. C. glabrata infections were associated with at least one risk factor for candidal infection. Given its resistance to azole-based therapy, this may have treatment implications for how candidal esophagitis is approached by the clinician.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".