MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122986119 · doi:10.3109/13693786.2010.512300

Early treatment of candidemia in adults: a review

2010· review· en· W2122986119 on OpenAlexaff
Luis Ostrosky‐Zeichner, Bart Jan Kullberg, Eric J. Bow, Susan Hadley, Cristóbal León, Márcio Nucci, Thomas F. Patterson, John R. Perfect

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Mycology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvasive candidiasisAntifungalMedicineIntensive care medicineBiomarkerRetrospective cohort studyClinical significanceInternal medicineBiologyFluconazoleDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invasive candidiasis is associated with high mortality, particularly in adults. Retrospective studies show that shorter times to treatment are correlated with a lower risk of death. A number of factors can be used to predict which patients would benefit from antifungal prophylaxis or early (pre-emptive or empirical) therapy. Detection of the fungal cell wall component (1→3)-β-D-glucan (BDG) shows promise as an early biomarker of invasive fungal infection and may be useful in identifying patients who would benefit from early antifungal treatment. To date, no consistent early treatment strategy has evolved. Proof-of-concept studies are needed to assess the role of pre-emptive and empirical therapy in ICU patients and the relevance of BDG as an early marker of infection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.362 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations96
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical MycologySame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207