Pulmonary Cryptococcosis in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: Clinical Relevance of Serum Cryptococcal Antigen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of serum cryptococcal antigen in the diagnosis and determinants of antigen positivity in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with pulmonary cryptococcosis has not been fully defined. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter study of SOT recipients with pulmonary cryptococcosis during 1999-2006. RESULTS: Forty (83%) of 48 patients with pulmonary cryptococcosis tested positive for cryptococcal antigen. Patients with concomitant extrapulmonary disease were more likely to have a positive antigen test result (P=.018), and antigen titers were higher in patients with extrapulmonary disease (P=.003) or fungemia (P=.045). Patients with single nodules were less likely to have a positive antigen test result than were those with all other radiographic presentations (P=.053). Among patients with isolated pulmonary cryptococcosis, lung transplant recipients were less likely to have positive cryptococcal antigen test results than were recipients of other types of SOT (P=.003). In all, 38% of the patients were asymptomatic or had pulmonary cryptococcosis detected as an incidental finding. Nodular densities or mass lesions were more likely to present as asymptomatic or incidentally detected pulmonary cryptococcosis than as pleural effusions and infiltrates (P=.008). CONCLUSIONS: A positive serum cryptococcal antigen test result in SOT recipients with pulmonary cryptococcosis appears to reflect extrapulmonary or more advanced radiographic disease.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".