Prospective Evaluation of Galactomannan and (1→3) β-<scp>d</scp>-Glucan Assays as Diagnostic Tools for Invasive Fungal Disease in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults With Acute Myeloid Leukemia Receiving Fungal Prophylaxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients receiving chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are at high risk for invasive fungal disease (IFD). Diagnosis of IFD is challenging, leading to interest in fungal biomarkers. The objective was to define the utility of surveillance testing with Platelia Aspergillus galactomannan (GM) enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and Fungitell β-d-glucan (BDG) assay in children with AML receiving antifungal prophylaxis. METHODS: Twice-weekly surveillance blood testing with GM EIA and BDG assay was performed during periods of neutropenia in the context of a randomized trial of children, adolescents, and young adults with AML allocated to fluconazole or caspofungin prophylaxis. Proven or probable IFD was adjudicated using blinded central reviewers. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for Platelia and Fungitell assays alone and in combination for the outcomes of proven and probable invasive aspergillosis (IA) or invasive candidiasis (IC). RESULTS: Among 471 patients enrolled, 425 participants (209 fluconazole and 216 caspofungin) contributed ≥1 blood specimen. In total, 6103 specimens were evaluated, with a median of 15 specimens per patient (range 1-43). The NPV was >99% for GM EIA and BDG assay alone and in combination. However, there were no true positive results, resulting in sensitivity and PPV for each assay of 0%. CONCLUSIONS: The GM EIA and the BDG assay alone or in combination were not successful at detecting IA or IC during periods of neutropenia in children, adolescents, and young adults with AML receiving antifungal prophylaxis. Utilization of these assays for surveillance in this clinical setting should be discouraged.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".