MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211139165 · doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2022.01.027

Defining COVID-19–associated pulmonary aspergillosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4211139165 on OpenAlexafffund
Ruwandi Kariyawasam, Tanis C. Dingle, Brittany Kula, Ben Vandermeer, Wendy Sligl, Ilan S. Schwartz

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Microbiology and Infection · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNorthern Alberta Clinical Trials and Research Centre
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Meta-analysisPulmonary aspergillosis2019-20 coronavirus outbreakAspergillosisSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEBetacoronavirusVirologyIntensive care medicinePathologyImmunologyBiologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)OutbreakDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary aspergillosis may complicate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and contribute to excess mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The disease is poorly understood, in part due to discordant definitions across studies. OBJECTIVES: We sought to review the prevalence, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) and compare research definitions. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and MedRxiv were searched from inception to October 12, 2021. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: ICU cohort studies and CAPA case series including ≥3 patients were included. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients in ICUs with COVID-19. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were reclassified according to four research definitions. We assessed risk of bias with an adaptation of the Joanna Briggs Institute cohort checklist tool for systematic reviews. METHODS: We calculated CAPA prevalence using the Freeman-Tukey random effects method. Correlations between definitions were assessed with Spearman's rank test. Associations between antifungals and outcome were assessed with random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were included. Among 3297 COVID-19 patients in ICU cohort studies, 313 were diagnosed with CAPA (prevalence 10%; 95% CI 8%-13%). Two hundred seventy-seven patients had patient-level data allowing reclassification. Definitions had limited correlation with one another (ρ = 0.268-0.447; p < 0.001), with the exception of Koehler and Verweij (ρ = 0.893; p < 0.001); 33.9% of patients reported to have CAPA did not fulfill any research definitions. Patients were diagnosed after a median of 8 days (interquartile range 5-14) in ICUs. Tracheobronchitis occurred in 3% of patients examined with bronchoscopy. The mortality rate was high (59.2%). Applying CAPA research definitions did not strengthen the association between mould-active antifungals and survival. CONCLUSIONS: The reported prevalence of CAPA is significant but may be exaggerated by nonstandard definitions.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.036
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations91
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Microbiology and InfectionSame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207