Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasive aspergillosis has become one of the most important infectious complications of intensive modern medicine often limiting the success of oncological treatments and transplantation. The rationale for this is found in the effects of immunosuppressive therapies and to a lesser degree underlying disease processes as well as in properties of the fungus. The double pronged nature of host defenses directed against spores and hyphae of Aspergilli is affected by glucocorticoids and myeloablative therapy. Resident alveolar macrophages are the major players eliminating inhaled conidia. Neutrophils, efficiently killing hyphae. These defense mechanisms are so solid that even after the inhalation of billions of spores infection is reliably prevented in man. Mechanisms by which glucocorticoids prevent macrophages from first inhibiting germination of ingested conidia and then killing them have not been elucidated. Mobilization of neutrophils is also hampered by glucocorticoids that have the potential to suppress the expression of an array of neutrophil chemokines by macrophages. Glucocorticoids are thus able to abrogate defenses against Aspergilli on their own, affecting both lines of defense. In neutrophil granulocytes oxidative killing systems directed against hyphae are of major importance as pointed out by infections in children with chronic granulomatous disease, but other killing systems such as defensins and possibly thrombocidins are also of importance. To date it remains speculative that platelet derived thrombocidins play an important role, but such speculations are tempting in view of the angio-invasive nature of the fungus and the coexisting thrombocytopenia in many patients with aspergillosis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".