Fungi and Molds following Lung Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The landscape of fungal infections in lung transplant recipients has significantly changed over the course of time. The initial predominance of CANDIDA species has given way to the prominence of ASPERGILLUS species in the current era followed by other mold infections, namely, SCEDOSPORIUM and Zygomycetes, which are emerging as newer pathogens. CRYPTOCOCCUS NEOFORMANS is another important pathogen responsible for the morbidity in lung transplant recipients. The use of widespread antifungal prophylaxis directed against the mold infections has resulted in delayed onset of invasive aspergillosis in lung transplant recipients. In recent studies cumulative incidence rate of invasive aspergillosis was noted to be 2.4% at 12 months. Invasive mold infections in lung transplant may present as tracheobronchitis, invasive pulmonary infections, or disseminated disease. Invasive pulmonary infections are now the most common manifestations of mold infections, followed by tracheobronchitis. Pre- or posttransplant ASPERGILLUS colonization, along with preceding cytomegalovirus infections, hypogammaglobulinemia, and single-lung transplants are considered significant risk factors for invasive aspergillosis. Recently posttransplant colonization has been implicated in the development of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome. The appropriate antimold prophylaxis strategy, by the use of either voriconazole or inhaled amphotericin, remains to be fully determined. Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of invasive aspergillosis have resulted in significant decreases in mortality. The risk factors for other mold infections such as SCEDOSPORIUM or Zygomycetes are being elucidated. Infections with these organisms, however, carry mortality up to 80%. The current article reviews the changes in the epidemiology of invasive molds and CRYPTOCOCCUS infections and other emerging fungal pathogens and highlights the controversies surrounding antifungal prophylaxis in lung transplant recipients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".