Low Utility of Pediatric Isolator Blood Culture System for Detection of Fungemia in Children: a 10-Year Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of the Wampole Isolator 1.5-ml pediatric blood culture tube for the detection of fungemia in children was assessed by a 10-year retrospective review at two pediatric hospitals, The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada, and the Children's Medical Center of Dallas, Texas. Over this period, a total of 9,442 pediatric Isolator specimens were processed, with yeast or yeast-like organisms recovered in 297 (3.1%) of the specimens (151 [1.6%] unique clinical episodes) and filamentous or dimorphic fungi recovered in 31 (0.3%) of the specimens (25 unique clinical episodes). Only 18 of the 151 clinical episodes of fungemia attributable to yeast were not detected by automated blood culture systems. The majority of isolated yeast were Candida spp., which were usually detected by automated systems, whereas the most common non-Candida yeast was Malassezia furfur, which the automated system failed to detect. Filamentous or dimorphic fungi were detected in 25 episodes, of which only 9 (36%) episodes were deemed clinically significant after chart review, indicating that in the majority of cases (16/25, 64%) fungal isolation represented contamination. In five of the nine clinically significant episodes, the isolated fungus (Histoplasma capsulatum, Coccidioides immitis/posadasii, Fusarium oxysporum, Aspergillus spp., and Bipolaris spp.) was also identified in other clinical specimens. Over the 10-year study period, the use of the pediatric Isolator system, at the discretion of the treating physician, only rarely provided useful clinical information for the diagnosis of fungemia in children, with the exception of M. furfur and possibly endemic 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.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".