Faculty Opinions recommendation of Empirical fluconazole versus placebo for intensive care unit patients: a randomized trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Invasive infection with Candida species is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Optimal preventive strategies have not been clearly defined.OBJECTIVE: To see whether empirical fluconazole improves clinical outcomes more than placebo in adult ICU patients at high risk for invasive candidiasis.DESIGN: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial conducted from 1995 to 2000.SETTING: 26 ICUs in the United States.PATIENTS: 270 adult ICU patients with fever despite administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics. All had central venous catheters and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score greater than 16.INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to either intravenous fluconazole, 800 mg daily, or placebo for 2 weeks and were followed for 4 weeks thereafter. Two hundred forty-nine participants were available for outcome assessment.MEASUREMENTS: A composite primary outcome that defined success as all 4 of the following: resolution of fever; absence of invasive fungal infection; no discontinuation because of toxicity; and no need for a nonstudy, systemic antifungal medication (as assessed by a blinded oversight committee).RESULTS: Only 44 of 122 (36%) fluconazole recipients and 48 of 127 (38%) placebo recipients had a successful outcome (relative risk, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.32; P = 0.78]). The main reason for failure was lack of resolution of fever (51% for fluconazole and 57% for placebo). Documented invasive candidiasis occurred in 5% of fluconazole recipients and 9% of placebo recipients (relative risk, 0.57 [CI, 0.22 to 1.49]). Seven (5%) fluconazole recipients and 10 (7%) placebo recipients had adverse events resulting in discontinuation of the study drug. Discontinuation because of abnormal liver test results occurred in 3 (2%) fluconazole recipients and 5 (4%) placebo recipients.LIMITATIONS: Twenty-one randomly assigned patients were not included in the analysis because they either did not meet entry criteria or did not have postbaseline assessments. Fewer fungal infections than anticipated occurred in the control group. Confidence bounds were wide and did not exclude potentially important differences in outcomes between groups.CONCLUSION: In critically ill adults with risk factors for invasive candidiasis, empirical fluconazole did not clearly improve a composite outcome more than placebo. PMID: 18626047
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.004 |
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".