MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153482254 · doi:10.1093/jpids/piu074

A Prospective, International Cohort Study of Invasive Mold Infections in Children

2014· article· en· W2153482254 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel L Wattier, Christopher C. Dvorak, Jill A. Hoffman, Ava Brozovich, Ibrahim Bin-Hussain, Andreas H. Groll, Elio Castagnola, Katherine M. Knapp, Theoklis E. Zaoutis, Britt Gustafsson, Lillian Sung, David M. Berman, Natasha Halasa, Mark J. Abzug, Aristea Velegraki, Tanvi Sharma, Brian T. Fisher, William J. Steinbach

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyCohortCohort studyIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations111
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases SocietySame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207