Rate of <i>cyp51A</i> mutation in <i>Aspergillus fumigatus</i> among lung transplant recipients with targeted prophylaxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The most common mechanism of azole (itraconazole and voriconazole) resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus is a mutation at the cyp51A locus. The aim of our study was to determine the rate of cyp51A mutations in lung transplant recipients (LTR) undergoing targeted antifungal prophylaxis with 12 weeks of voriconazole. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study that included 22 LTR with A. fumigatus between October 2008 and November 2011. Of those, 10 LTR were colonized with A. fumigatus and 12 had invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. RESULTS: Four patients were found to have A. fumigatus isolates with a cyp51A mutation, two had colonization and two had invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. The remaining 18 LTR had WT cyp51A A. fumigatus isolates. All A. fumigatus isolates (except one due to mixed growth) were tested for antifungal susceptibility. A total of nine LTR were exposed to azoles prior to A. fumigatus isolation for a median duration of 249 (IQR 99-524) days. Azole exposure preceded the isolation of two mutant isolates and seven WT isolates. None of the cyp51A mutant isolates conferred phenotypic resistance to azoles. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted antifungal prophylaxis in LTR did not lead to cyp51A resistance mutations in this cohort. Data on larger cohorts who receive universal antifungal prophylaxis are needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".