Combination Antifungal Therapy: A Review of Current Data
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
The incidence of invasive fungal infections has been on the rise, particularly in transplant recipients and in patients with hematological malignancies and other forms of immunosuppression. There is a mismatch between the rate of antifungal resistance and the development of new antifungal agents. Based on this, the idea of combining antifungals in the treatment of invasive fungal infections appears tempting for many clinicians, particularly after many in vitro studies showed synergism between many antifungal agents. Several randomized controlled trials have been published regarding the efficacy and safety of combination of antifungals, but the high cost, the limited number of cases and the multitude of confounding factors lead in some instances to weak and sometimes contradictory results. The lack of consensus in many clinical scenarios raises the importance of the need for more studies about combination antifungal therapies and should incite infectious disease societies to develop specific recommendations for the clinicians to follow while approaching patients with invasive fungal infections. J Clin Med Res. 2017;9(6):451-456 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr2992w
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.071 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| 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 it