Combinatorial strategies for combating invasive fungal infections
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasive fungal infections are an important cause of human mortality and morbidity, particularly for immunocompromised populations. However, there remains a paucity of antifungal drug treatments available to combat these fungal pathogens. Further, antifungal compounds are plagued with problems such as host toxicity, fungistatic activity, and the emergence of drug resistance in pathogen populations. A promising therapeutic strategy to increase drug effectiveness and mitigate the emergence of drug resistance is through the use of combination drug therapy. In this review we describe the current arsenal of antifungals in medicine and elaborate on the benefits of combination therapy to expand our current antifungal drug repertoire. We examine those antifungal combinations that have shown potential against fungal pathogens and discuss strategies being employed to discover novel combination therapeutics, in particular combining antifungal agents with non-antifungal bioactive compounds. The findings summarized in this review highlight the promise of combinatorial strategies in combatting invasive mycoses.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it