Changes in the spectrum and risk factors for invasive candidiasis in liver transplant recipients: prospective, multicenter, case-controlled study1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study determines whether the spectrum, risk factors, and outcome of invasive candidiasis in liver transplant recipients have changed. METHODS: Thirty-five consecutive liver transplant recipients with invasive candidiasis were prospectively studied in a case-controlled, multicenter study. One control was matched with the case for duration of hospitalization and the other for antibiotic use so that risk factors unique in liver transplantation could be elicited. RESULTS: In matched-pair analysis, antibiotic prophylaxis for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (odds ratio [OR] 8.3, P=0.002), posttransplant dialysis (OR 7.6, P=0.0009), and retransplantation (OR 16.4, P=0.0018) were independently significant predictors of invasive candidiasis. Candida spp. included C. albicans in 65% of patients, C. glabrata in 21%, C. tropicalis in 9%, C. parapsilosis in 3%, and C. guilliermondii in 3%. Patients with C. albicans infections were less likely to have received antifungal prophylaxis than those with non-albicans Candida infections (13.6% vs. 50%, P=0.04). The mortality rate was 36.1% for the cases and 2.8% for the controls (OR 25.0, 95% confidence interval, 6.2-100.5, P=0.0002). Non-albicans Candida infections (P=0.04) and prior antifungal prophylaxis (P=0.05) correlated with poorer outcome in the cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our study has identified predictors for Candida infections in the current era that have implications relevant for targeting the prophylaxis toward the high-risk patients. Routine use of antifungal prophylaxis warrants concern given the emergence of non-albicans Candida spp. as significant pathogens after liver transplantation and higher mortality in patients with these infections.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".