MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Comparison of Sensitivity of Low-Dose CT Scan and Serum Galactomannan in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies and Positive Bronchoalveolar Lavage for Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis

2012· article· en· W2582195065 on OpenAlexaff
Sita Bhella, Narinder Paul, Shahid Husain, Joseph Brandwein

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalactomannanMedicineBronchoalveolar lavageAspergillosisGastroenterologyHematopoietic stem cell transplantationInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyAcute leukemiaLeukemiaRadiologyTransplantationPathologyLungImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1490 Background: Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality in patients with acute leukemia and those undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Timely diagnosis of IPA is crucial, but difficult. Strategies for early detection of IPA include serum galactomannan (GM), bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) GM and characteristic radiologic abnormalities on CT scan; however, the relative sensitivity of these diagnostic tests is unclear. We sought to determine the utility of serum GM and characteristic CT radiologic abnormalities in diagnosing IPA in patients with hematologic malignancies who had a positive BAL for Aspergillus. Methods: We performed a single center retrospective cohort study from 2010 to 2012 to determine the sensitivity serum GM (OD > 0.5) and low dose CT scan in patients with hematologic malignancies. All positive BAL GM samples and Aspergillus isolates from BAL fluid cultures from patients with acute leukemia and those undergoing HSCT were reviewed; all patients had abnormal chest CT scans consistent with pulmonary infection. IPA was classified as proven, probable or possible according to EORTC/MSG criteria. Recent low dose CT scans correlating to the date of the positive BAL GM or Aspergillus isolation were reviewed and graded: halo signs, cavities, crescents and nodules were deemed to be consistent with IPA, while other changes (e.g. ground-glass changes, consolidation) were considered non-specific. Results: A total of 49 BAL samples were included; of these, 31 were considered probable IPA and 18 possible IPA (on the basis of non-specific radiologic findings). Most patients had either no prior or 1–2 days of mold-active antifungal agents. There were 43 cases with positive BAL GM and 11 cases of positive Aspergillus BAL isolates; 5 patients had both. Of the positive BAL GM cases, 27 (63%) were associated with radiologic findings consistent with IPA. The remaining cases were associated with non-specific radiologic findings. Of the patients with Aspergillus isolates on BAL, 55% (6/11) had radiologic features consistent with IPA, while the remaining cases had non-specific radiologic findings. We next evaluated the sensitivity of serum GM. Of 34 patients with BAL GM positivity who had concomitant serum GM testing, 4 (12%) had positive serum GM. Of 8 patients with Aspergillus species isolated on BAL who had serum GM performed, only 1 (12.5%) had positive serum GM. In contrast, 5/8 patients (63%) with Aspergillus isolates on BAL had a positive BAL GM. The combined sensitivity of serum GM was 12% (5/42). Conclusions: Although the majority of patients with positive BAL for Aspergillus (+GM and/or isolates) had characteristic radiologic findings on CT scan, the absence of such findings did not exclude this diagnosis, as over one third had only non-specific radiologic findings. Serum GM had very low sensitivity in this population and should not be used in isolation to diagnose IPA. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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)0.004
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility→French-language works237,207→