Candida Keratitis: Epidemiology, Management, and Clinical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the epidemiological characteristics, trends, risk factors, management strategies, and clinical outcomes of Candida albicans and non-albicans keratitis over a 15-year period in a tertiary Canadian eye center. METHODS: In a retrospective observational case series of Candida keratitis from 2003 to 2017, demographics, risk factors, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) at initial and final consultations, medical and surgical management, and follow-up duration were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-one cases of Candida keratitis were identified (62.5% of total fungal keratitis; 10 C. albicans and 11 non-albicans). The most commonly associated risk factors were topical steroid use (16 patients, 76%), ocular surface disease (15 patients, 71%), contact lens use (11 patients, 52%), and previous corneal surgery (8 patients, 38%); all patients had 2 or more combined risk factors. The number of patients with a visual acuity of 20/200 or better remained the same before and after the treatment (5/21, 24%). The mean duration of the antifungal treatment was 98 ± 126 days. Sixteen patients ultimately required surgical management (76%; 12 therapeutic keratoplasties, 3 enucleation, and 1 optical keratoplasty). When comparing C. albicans with non-albicans keratitis, we found no difference in presenting visual acuity, final visual acuity, or requirement for surgical management. CONCLUSIONS: Candida keratitis accounts for the most identified fungal keratitis cases in this temperate climate area. An exposure to multiple risk factors appears necessary. A surgical intervention is required for the resolution of most cases. Different subspecies of Candida ultimately resulted in similar clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".