A Double‐Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Amphotericin B Colloidal Dispersion versus Amphotericin B for Treatment of Invasive Aspergillosis in Immunocompromised Patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial in which amphotericin B colloidal dispersion (ABCD [Amphotec]; 6 mg/kg/day) was compared with amphotericin B (AmB; 1.0-1.5 mg/kg/day) for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis in 174 patients. For evaluable patients in the ABCD and AmB treatment groups, respective rates of therapeutic response (52% vs. 51%; P=1.0), mortality (36% vs. 45%; P=.4), and death due to fungal infection (32% vs. 26%; P=.7) were similar. Renal toxicity was lower (25% vs. 49%; P=.002) and the median time to onset of nephrotoxicity was longer (301 vs. 22 days; P<.001) in patients treated with ABCD. Rates of drug-related toxicity in patients receiving ABCD and AmB, respectively, were 53% versus 30% (chills), 27% versus 16% (fever), 1% versus 4% (hypoxia) and 22% versus 24% (toxicity requiring study drug discontinuation). ABCD appears to have equivalent efficacy and superior renal safety, compared with AmB, in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis. However, infusion-related chills and fever occurred more frequently in patients receiving ABCD than in those receiving AmB.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it