Invasive <i>Candida albicans</i> fungal infection requiring explantation of a noncrosslinked porcine derived biologic mesh: a rare but catastrophic complication in abdominal wall reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Biologic mesh is preferred over synthetic mesh for complex and contaminated abdominal wall repairs; however, there are very little data on the risks and complications associated with its use. We report the case of a 67-year-old man with failed synthetic mesh repair for recurrent ventral hernia, who subsequently required an abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR), including the intraperitoneal sublay of noncrosslinked biologic mesh. His postoperative course was complicated with catastrophic sepsis and sustained hemodynamic instability, responding only to mesh explantation. The biologic mesh was subsequently noted to be histologically infected with invasive Candida albicans. Although noncrosslinked biologic mesh is a valuable adjunct to AWR, it is not infection-resistant. Although it is rare, infection of any foreign tissue, including biologic mesh, can occur in the setting of complex ventral abdominal wall repairs. Clinicians should be watchful for such infections in complex repairs as they may require biologic mesh explantation for clinical recovery.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".