International expert opinion on the management of infection caused by azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An international expert panel was convened to deliberate the management of azole-resistant aspergillosis. In culture-positive cases, in vitro susceptibility testing should always be performed if antifungal therapy is intended. Different patterns of resistance are seen, with multi-azole and pan-azole resistance more common than resistance to a single triazole. In confirmed invasive pulmonary aspergillosis due to an azole-resistant Aspergillus, the experts recommended a switch from voriconazole to liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB; Ambisome(®)). In regions with environmental resistance rates of ≥10%, a voriconazole-echinocandin combination or L-AmB were favoured as initial therapy. All experts recommended L-AmB as core therapy for central nervous system aspergillosis suspected to be due to an azole-resistant Aspergillus, and considered the addition of a second agent with the majority favouring flucytosine. Intravenous therapy with either micafungin or L-AmB given as either intermittent or continuous therapy was recommended for chronic pulmonary aspergillosis due to a pan-azole-resistant Aspergillus. Local and national surveillance with identification of clinical and environmental resistance patterns, rapid diagnostics, better quality clinical outcome data, and a greater understanding of the factors driving or minimising environmental resistance are areas where research is urgently needed, as well as the development of new oral agents outside the azole drug class.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.008 |
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".