Retrospective evaluation of caspofungin therapy in invasive aspergillosis (RECAM-IA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate caspofungin in high-risk invasive aspergillosis (IA) patient, a retrospective review of patient characteristics, antifungal therapies and clinical outcomes on hospitalised patients at sites in Russia, Canada, Germany, and Thailand was performed. Fifty-five patients were included, six with proven and 49 with probable aspergillosis; 76.4% had haematological diseases, 80% were on immunosuppressive drugs, 32.7% were neutropenic at caspofungin initiation. Median duration of prior antifungal therapy was 9 days (range 1-232). Reasons for initiating caspofungin included: disease refractory to first-line antifungal (49.1%) and toxicities with prior antifungals (18.2%). Median caspofungin therapy duration was 14 days (range 2-62), with a median of 13 days (range 1-62) as monotherapy. Favourable responses were observed in 45.5% of the patients, complete responses in 40% and partial responses in 5.5%; 74.5% survived 7 days after completion of caspofungin therapy with 69.1% having been successfully discharged from the hospital. Few patients (14.6%) on caspofungin switched because of suspected resistance, lack of response or adverse events. There were no increases in hospital stay as a result of adverse events or drug-drug interactions related to caspofungin; 7.3% of patients had a mean value of 13 (± 14.11) days of increased stay attributable to treatment failure. Caspofungin was well-tolerated. It exhibited effectiveness and high survival in treating severe IA patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".