Adherence to, and Outcomes of, a Galactomannan Screening Protocol in High-Risk Hematology Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A twice-weekly galactomannan (GM) screening protocol was implemented in high-risk hematology inpatients. Study objectives were to determine adherence to the protocol, use of selected resources, and patient outcomes. Methods: This retrospective cohort study compared outcomes of interest before and after implementation of GM screening. Adults undergoing matched related allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation or induction chemotherapy for acute leukemia were eligible. Patients could be enrolled more than once and were evaluated as episodes. Adherence to the GM protocol was assessed in post-implementation episodes. Use of broad-spectrum antifungals (BSAFS), consultations (infectious diseases, respirology), and diagnostic procedures (computed tomography imaging, bronchoalveolar lavage) were compared between phases, as were the patient outcomes of all-cause mortality and clinical success (alive and not taking a BSAF). Results: Of 182 episodes consecutively screened, 70 per phase were enrolled. Clinical characteristics and duration of assessment were similar for the phases. Full or partial adherence to the protocol was observed in 61 post-implementation episodes (87%), with full adherence in 40 episodes (57%). More episodes in the pre-implementation phase than in the post-implementation phase involved receipt of BSAFS, consultations, and diagnostics (27% vs. 7%, p = 0.02; 46% vs. 26%, p = 0.014; and 46% vs. 31%, p = 0.083 respectively). Although mortality was similar in the two phases, clinical success at the final assessment was observed in fewer pre-implementation than post-implementation episodes (79% vs. 98%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Implementation of a GM screening protocol was feasible and associated with significantly fewer episodes involving receipt of BSAFS and consultations, and with significantly more episodes showing clinical success.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".