Management of Invasive Fungal Disease in Neonates and Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasive fungal diseases (IFD) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in premature neonates and immunocompromised pediatric patients. Their diagnostic and therapeutic management remains a challenge. A nationwide survey was conducted among 13 of the largest pediatric units in the United Kingdom, to obtain insight in the current management of IFD in neonates and children. All responding centers were tertiary teaching centers. The use of fungal diagnostic tools and imaging modalities varied among centers. Antifungal prophylaxis was prescribed in most centers for extreme-low birth weight (LBW) infants and high-risk hemato-oncologic patients, but with a huge variety in antifungals given. An empirical treatment was favored by most centers in case of febrile neutropenia. First line therapy for candidemia consists of either fluconazole or liposomal amphotericin B, with voriconazole being first-line therapy for invasive aspergillosis. Disseminated invasive aspergillosis was most often mentioned as a reason to prescribe combination antifungal therapy. In conclusion, this survey reinforces the fact that there are still important aspects in the management of pediatric IFD which should ideally be addressed in pediatric clinical trials. Attention needs to be given the knowledge gaps as observed in the results of our survey to optimize the management of IFD in children and neonates.
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".