Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diagnosis: Congenital cutaneous candidiasis. The diagnosis was confirmed by culture of a pustule specimen that yielded Candida albicans. The infant was treated with topical ketoconazole. Nine days after initiation of treatment, desquamation of the rash had occurred on most of the body, with a few residual pustules remaining on the face. Congenital cutaneous candidiasis, a rare but well-described infectious syndrome that occurs in newborn infants, was recently reviewed elsewhere [1]. The infection typically presents in 1 of 2 ways. Infants who are delivered at term present with the typical erythematous papular and pustular eruption that is illustrated in figures 1 and 2. Whether treated or not, this clinical scenario has a good prognosis and usually is not associated with systemic infection. Premature infants (those born at <27 weeks gestation with a birth weight of <1000 g) may also present with denuded areas of skin or a diffuse erythematous macular eruption that resembles a burn. Without treatment, these infants are more likely to have invasive disease with sepsis and a poor prognosis. A 1-day-old infant with rash due to Candida albicans. The rash is primarily papular with a few pustules and extends onto the trunk and extremities. The same infant on the third day of life. The lesions are now more prominent on the palms and soles with a marked pustular component. Fluid aspirated from a palmar lesion grew Candida albicans. For term infants, full recovery is expected and therapy limited to topical antifungal agents is appropriate [2]. Because of the potential for invasive disease, systemic antifungal therapy should be considered for premature infants and those who have burnlike dermatitis. The usual drug of choice is amphotericin B, although fluconazole may be considered as second-line therapy [2].
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 | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.232 | 0.105 |
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".