MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619798408 · doi:10.1093/jpids/pix030

Risk Factors for Invasive Fungal Disease in Pediatric Cancer and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Systematic Review

2017· review· en· W2619798408 on OpenAlexaff
Brian T. Fisher, Paula D. Robinson, Thomas Lehrnbecher, William J. Steinbach, Theoklis E. Zaoutis, Bob Phillips, Lillian Sung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenPediatric Oncology Group
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesAstellas PharmaNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMerck
KeywordsMedicineHematopoietic stem cell transplantationNeutropeniaTransplantationPediatric cancerRisk factorDiseaseMEDLINECancerIntensive care medicineInternal medicineOncologyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although a number of risk factors have been associated with invasive fungal disease (IFD), a systematic review of the literature to document pediatric-specific factors has not been performed. METHODS: We used the Ovid SP platform to search Medline, Medline In-Process, and Embase for studies that identified risk factors for IFD in children with cancer or those who undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). We included studies if they consisted of children or adolescents (<25 years) who were receiving treatment for cancer or undergoing HSCT and if the study evaluated risk factors among patients with and those without IFD. RESULTS: Among the 3566 studies screened, 22 studies were included. A number of pediatric factors commonly associated with an increased risk for IFD were confirmed, including prolonged neutropenia, high-dose steroid exposure, intensive-timing chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia, and acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease. Increasing age, a factor not commonly associated with IFD risk, was identified as a risk factor in multiple published cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: With this systematic review, we have confirmed IFD risk factors that are considered routinely in daily clinical practice. Increasing age should also be considered when assessing patient risk for IFD. Future efforts should focus on defining more precise thresholds for a particular risk factor (ie, age, neutropenia duration) and on development of prediction rules inclusive of individual factors to further refine the risk prediction.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations149
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases SocietySame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207