Multicenter Evaluation of Fungal Prophylaxis in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: The University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) conducted a benchmarking study to assess members’ compliance with published guidelines for prevention of fungal infections in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients. METHODS: Adult HSCT patients were evaluated by retrospective chart review of cases discharged between 01/01/04 and 06/30/05. Data collected included demographics, use of prophylaxis (px), and outcomes. Patients were classified as high or low risk for fungal infection according to NCCN and CDC guidelines. RESULTS: Thirteen UHC member hospitals submitted a total of 242 HSCT cases. Patient characteristics and administration of antifungal therapy are shown in Table 1. 57% (137/242) of patients were classified as high risk for fungal infection. Overall, 85% (205/242) of patients received antifungal px. Compliance with national guideline directed antifungal px was 54%. Of patients who did not receive px, 59% (22/37) were high-risk. 32% (7/22) of these patients required empiric antifungal therapy, 29% (2/7) had a confirmed fungal infection and 1 of these patients died. Of patients who received antifungal px, 44% (90/205) were classified as low risk. 6.7% (6/90) went on to require empiric therapy and 2 died. 84.4% of patients had fluconazole as at least one of their prophylactic agents, and 34% of patients received prophylactic antifungals that provided coverage for both Aspergillus and Candida species. 5.4% (13/242) of HSCT recipients died during the target hospitalization. 76.9% (10/13) of these patients were high risk. 61.5% (8/13) had signs/symptoms of a suspected or definitive fungal infection at the time of death (6 were high risk). CONCLUSION: Most HSCT patients did not receive appropriate fungal px based on current guidelines. Failure represented both under and over utilization of px. Further study is required to explain poor adherence to current guidelines. Table 1: Patient Characteristics by Degree of Risk High Risk (n=137) Low Risk (n=105) % (n) % (n) *ABX = broad spectrum antibiotics Chemotherapy prior to admission 53.3% (73) 61.9% (65) Radiation prior to admission 23.4% (32) 17.1% (18) Allogeneic Transplant 75.9% (104) 17.1% (18) Cytomegalovirus disease 11.7% (16) 6.7% (7) GVHD 15.3% (21) 1.0% (1) Mucositis 55.5% (76) 7.6% (8) Systemic corticosteroids 63.5% (87) 44.8% (47) Fever unresponsive to >4 days of ABX 19.0% (26) 12.4% (13) Neutropenia during antifungal therapy 39.4% (54) 27.6% (29) History of Aspergillus infection 3.6% (5) 0.0% (0) Antifungal therapy: Prophylaxis 83.9% (115) 85.7% (90) Failed prophylaxis 21.2% (29) 5.7% (6) Empiric therapy 25.4% (32) 10.5% (11) Definite treatment 6.6% (8) 0.0% (0)
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 | 0.024 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".