Blastomycosis in Africa and the Middle East: A Comprehensive Review of Reported Cases and Reanalysis of Historical Isolates Based on Molecular Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blastomycosis has been reported from countries in Africa and the Middle East, but a decades-long debate has persisted regarding whether this is the same disease known in North America and caused by Blastomyces dermatitidis and Blastomyces gilchristii. METHODS: We reviewed published cases of human and veterinary blastomycosis from Africa and the Middle East. We abstracted epidemiological and clinical features of cases, including sites of disease, diagnosis, management, outcomes, and, where available, genetic and antigenic typing of case isolates. In addition, we sequenced nucleic acids from 9 clinical isolates from Africa deposited in global collections as B. dermatitidis; for 5, we sequenced the internal transcribed spacer regions, and for the other 4 we sequenced the whole genomes. RESULTS: We identified 172 unique human patients with blastomycosis, including 159 patients from 25 African countries and 12 patients from 5 Middle Eastern countries, and also identified 7 reports of veterinary blastomycosis. In humans, cutaneous disease predominated (n = 100/137, 73%), followed by pulmonary (n = 73/129, 57%) and osteoarticular involvement (n = 61/128, 48%). Unusual direct microscopy/histopathological presentations included short hyphal fragments in tissues (n = 23/129, 18%). There were 34 genotyped case isolates that comprised 4 species: Blastomyces percursus (n = 22, 65%), from 8 countries throughout all regions; Blastomyces emzantsi (n = 9, 26%), from South Africa; B. dermatitidis (n = 1, 3%), from the Democratic Republic of Congo; and B. gilchristii (n = 2, 6%), from South Africa and Zimbabwe. CONCLUSIONS: Blastomycosis occurs throughout Africa and the Middle East and is caused predominantly by B. percursus and, at least in South Africa, B. emzantsi, resulting in distinct clinical and pathological patterns of disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".