Comparison of PCR to Histology for the Diagnosis of Invasive Candidiasis in a Murine Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of a PCR method to diagnose invasive candidiasis in comparison to histology was determined using a murine model. One hundred and sixty mice were divided into 16 groups of 10 mice each. One group served as a negative control while 15 groups were infected with Candida albicans. Of the infected groups, 14 (A1-A7 and B1-B7) received fluconazole treatment. Surviving animals of group A1 were killed on day 3, and animals of successive groups were sacrificed every other day thereafter. Fluconazole treatment was stopped in the corresponding B group. All surviving mice were killed on day 43. One hundred and thirty-eight mice were evaluable. Yeast were seen in the kidney specimens of 77 mice; 66/77 of these, plus an additional 7 histologically-negative mice, were positive by PCR. The sensitivity and specificity of the PCR test compared with histology were 85.71% and 88.52%, respectively. In combination with blood cultures, PCR could be a useful diagnostic tool for invasive candidiasis in clinical settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".