MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128451289 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofab066

Fungal Burden and Raised Intracranial Pressure Are Independently Associated With Visual Loss in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Associated Cryptococcal Meningitis

2021· article· en· W3128451289 on OpenAlexaff
Síle F. Molloy, B.A. Ross, Cecilia Kanyama, Sayoki Mfinanga, Sokoine Lesikari, Robert S. Heyderman, Newton Kalata, Jayne Ellis, Charles Kouanfack, Duncan Chanda, Elvis Temfack, Shabir Lakhi, Anand Moodley, Adrienne K Chan, Joep J. van Oosterhout, Yacouba Njankouo Mapoure, Peter Mwaba, David G. Lalloo, Duolao Wang, Olivier Lortholary, Shabbar Jaffar, Mina C. Hosseinipour, Angela Loyse, Thomas S. Harrison, Tihana Bicanic

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Infections and Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineMeningitisOdds ratioConfidence intervalCryptococcosisCryptococcal meningitisCerebrospinal fluidHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Internal medicineImmunologySurgeryViral disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Among 472 patients with human immunodeficiency virus-associated cryptococcal meningitis, 16% had severe visual loss at presentation, and 46% of these were 4-week survivors and remained severely impaired. Baseline cerebrospinal fluid opening pressure ≥40 cmH2O (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36–4.83; P = .02) and fungal burden >6.0 log10 colonies/mL (aOR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.58–5.7; P = .003) were independently associated with severe visual loss.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicFungal Infections and StudiesFrench-language works237,207