Does the use of oral nonabsorbable antifungal prophylaxis reduce the incidence of fungal colonization and/or systemic infection in preterm infants?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal infection is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. Oral nonabsorbable agents are used prophylactically, but the literature regarding their effectiveness has not been systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To determine if oral nonabsorbable antifungal prophylaxis reduces the incidence of fungal colonization and/or systemic infection in preterm infants. METHODS: The literature was reviewed using the methodology for systematic reviews for the Consensus on Resuscitation Science adapted from the American Heart Association's International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. RESULTS: Five studies were reviewed. Three level of evidence 1 studies and two level of evidence 3/4 studies provided evidence that the prophylactic use of oral nonabsorbable antifungal agents can reduce the incidence of fungal colonization and/or systemic fungal infection in preterm infants. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic oral nonabsorbable antifungal medications are an acceptable approach to reduce colonization and invasive fungal infection in preterm infants in units with high baseline colonization rates.
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 | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".