Prognostic factors in 264 adults with invasive<i>Scedosporium</i>spp. and<i>Lomentospora prolificans</i>infection reported in the literature and FungiScope<sup>®</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
registry. For 208 Scedosporium spp. infections solid organ transplantation (n = 58, 27.9%) and for 56 L. prolificans infection underlying malignancy (n = 28, 50.0%) were the most prevalent risk factors. L. prolificans infections frequently presented as fungemia (n = 26, 46.4% versus n = 12, 5.8% for Scedosporium spp.). Malignancy, fungemia, CNS and lung involvement predicted worse outcome for scedosporiosis and lomentosporiosis. Patients treated with voriconazole had a better overall outcome in both groups compared to treatment with amphotericin B formulations. This review discusses the epidemiology, prognostic factors, pathogen susceptibility to approved and investigational antifungals, and treatment strategies of severe infections caused by Scedosporium spp. and L. prolificans.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".