A Double‐Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Amphotericin B Colloidal Dispersion versus Amphotericin B for Treatment of Invasive Aspergillosis in Immunocompromised Patients
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".