Targeted caspofungin prophylaxis for invasive aspergillosis in high‐risk liver transplant recipients, a single‐center experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is a rare but highly lethal complication after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Targeted antifungal prophylaxis has been proposed as a strategy to prevent IA among orthotopic liver transplant recipient (OLTr), but limited data are available to support its efficacy. METHOD: We conducted a single-center, retrospective, before and after cohort study, comparing IA incidences among OLTr who did not receive antifungal prophylaxis after transplantation (cohort 1) to OLTr who received targeted antifungal prophylaxis after liver transplantation (cohort 2). Patients in cohort 2 received caspofungin prophylaxis if they presented one of the following risk factors: retransplantation, acute liver failure, dialysis, or Aspergillus colonization prior to transplantation. The primary outcome was IA at 90 days after transplantation. RESULTS: A total of 391 OLTr were included in the study; 181 patients in the cohort 1 (no prophylaxis) and 210 patients in the cohort 2 (targeted prophylaxis). Among patients in cohort 2, 19% (40/ 210) were considered at high risk for IA and 85% (34/40) of those received caspofungin prophylaxis. The incidence of IA at 90 days was 3.3% (6/ 181) and 0.5% (1/ 210), in cohort 1 and 2, respectively (OR 0.14; 95%CI 0.01-0.83; P = .03). Ninety-day mortality was similar among the two cohorts (3.9% (7/181) and 2.4% (5/210) in cohort 1 and 2, respectively (OR 0.61; 95% 0.18-1.93; P = .40)). The 90-day mortality among the OLTs with IA was 71% (5/7). CONCLUSION: Targeted caspofungin prophylaxis was associated with lower rate of IA.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".