A Prospective, International Cohort Study of Invasive Mold Infections in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Invasive mold infections (IMIs) are a leading cause of mortality in immunocompromised children, yet there has never been an international epidemiologic investigation of pediatric IMIs. METHODS: This international, prospective cohort study was performed to characterize the epidemiology, antifungal therapy, and outcomes of pediatric IMIs. Children (≤18 years) with proven or probable IMIs were enrolled between August 2007 and May 2011 at 22 sites. Risk factors, underlying diagnoses, and treatments were recorded. Outcomes were assessed at 12 weeks after diagnosis using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group response criteria. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one pediatric patients with IMIs were enrolled; the most common IMI was invasive aspergillosis ([IA] 75%). Children with IA and those with other types of IMIs had similar underlying risk factors, except that children with IMIs caused by non-Aspergillus species were more likely to have received mold-active antifungal agents preceding diagnosis. The most commonly used antifungal classes after diagnosis were triazoles (82%) and polyenes (63%). Combination therapy was used in 53% of patients. Use of combination therapy was associated with an increased risk of adverse events (risk ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-3.68; P = .031), although there was no detectable difference in outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Although risk factors for IMIs are similar across specific subtypes, preceding antifungal therapy may be an important modifier. Combination antifungal therapy requires further study to determine its true risks and benefits.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".