MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529204894 · doi:10.1093/mmy/myw086

Epidemiological features of invasive mold infections among solid organ transplant recipients: PATH Alliance<sup>®</sup>registry analysis

2016· article· en· W2529204894 on OpenAlexaff
Shahid Husain, Fernanda P. Silveira, Nkechi Azie, Billy Franks, D. B. HORN

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Mycology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersAstellas Pharma Global DevelopmentChimerixPfizer
KeywordsInterquartile rangeMedicineEpidemiologyAspergillosisInternal medicineAntifungalSurgeryGastroenterologyImmunologyDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epidemiological characteristics of 333 proven and probable invasive mould infections (IMIs) among solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) identified between 2004 and 2008 from the Prospective Antifungal Therapy Alliance (PATH) registry are presented. Liver transplant recipients (LTRs) had the lowest median time to IMIs (109 days; interquartile range [IQR] 24-611 days), the highest rate of disseminated disease (n/N = 18/33; 55%), and highest mortality (n/N = 21/33; 64%). Lung transplant recipients had highest median time to IMIs (486 days; IQR 117-1358 days) and lowest mortality (n/N = 31/184; 17%). Complete or partial response at week 12 in patients with invasive aspergillosis (IA) was 67% (n/N = 189/281), and 41% (n/N = 9/22) in mucormycosis patients. In the composite outcome of death or no response to therapy, LTRs had the worst outcome. Higher suspicion of mold infection and institution of appropriate antifungal prophylactic strategies are warranted, especially in high risk LTRs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations55
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical MycologySame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207