Weekly use of fluconazole as prophylaxis in haematological patients at risk for invasive candidiasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal was to determine whether one medical centres' unique antifungal prophylactic regimen for patients at high risk for invasive candidiasis because of their haematological malignancies, haematopoietic stem cell transplants, or high-dose chemotherapy might lead ultimately to a higher incidence of infection, to increasing fluconazole resistance, or to a shift in the predominant strain of Candida in invasive fungal episodes. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively, for a ten-year period from ONKO-KISS surveillance records, and from hospital, medical, and pharmacy records and then evaluated with respect to incidence of fungal infection episodes, emergence of antifungal drug resistance, and predominance of specific Candida strains in isolate cultures. Fisher's exact test and linear regression were used to compare minimum inhibitory concentrations and to compare the incidence of different Candida isolates, respectively. RESULTS: The incidence of infection remained quite stable over 10 years with a median of 0.67 episodes/1000 bed days. Overall, Candida glabrata was the predominant species with 29% followed by C. albicans and C. krusei (14% each). No significant increment of non-albicans Candida species with decreased fluconazole susceptibility was perceived over this decade. CONCLUSIONS: Once weekly administration of 400 mg of fluconazole to prevent candidaemia appears to have no negative impact on the efficacy as a prophylaxis when compared to standard of care (400 mg of fluconazole daily).
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".