Strategies for the Prevention of Invasive Fungal Infections after Lung Transplant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-term survival after lung transplantation is lower than that associated with other transplanted organs. Infectious complications, most importantly invasive fungal infections, have detrimental effects and are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in this population. Candida infections predominate in the early post-transplant period, whereas invasive mold infections, usually those related to Aspergillus, are most common later on. This review summarizes the epidemiology and risk factors for invasive fungal diseases in lung transplant recipients, as well as the current evidence on preventive measures. These measures include universal prophylaxis, targeted prophylaxis, and preemptive treatment. Although there is consensus that a preventive strategy should be implemented, current data show no superiority of one preventive measure over another. Data are also lacking regarding the optimal antifungal regimen and the duration of treatment. As all current recommendations are based on observational, single-center, single-arm studies, it is necessary that this longstanding debate is settled with a multicenter randomized controlled trial.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".