Clinical and microbiological analysis of fungal keratitis in Toronto, Canada: A 20-year study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fungal keratitis is a devastating and difficult-to-treat ocular infection with high morbidity. Understanding geographic microbiological and clinical trends helps to guide rapid and effective treatment. We therefore report the characteristics and outcomes of fungal keratitis in Toronto,ON Canada, over a 20-year period. An electronic search of microbiology records at University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada identified all patients with positive corneal fungal culture over a 20-year period seen at our tertiary referral cornea practice. Review of corresponding patient charts identified demographic and microbiological details, clinical course, treatment regimen, and final outcomes associated with each episode of culture-positive fungal keratitis. A total of 46 patients with 51 discrete fungal keratitis episodes were included. Five patients experienced recurrent fungal keratitis. Candida species accounted for 60.8% of positive fungal cultures, followed by Filamentous species at 35.3%. Preferred initial anti-fungal treatment was topical amphotericin at 36.7% followed by topical voriconazole at 32.6%. Surgical intervention was required in 48.9% with therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty being the most common procedure (22.4%). Final visual acuity (VA) of <20/200 was attributed to 58% of patients in this study. Risk factors for poor outcomes included poor VA, topical steroid use at presentation, Candida involvement, history of ocular surface disease, organic ocular trauma, or prior corneal transplantation. Candida is the most frequent keratomycotic pathogen in Toronto. Risk factors for poor visual outcome include prior corneal transplantation, ocular surface disease/trauma, or pre-existing topical steroid use. Early suspicion, diagnosis and treatment are paramount for best clinical outcomes. LAY SUMMARY: Fungal keratitis can cause severe vision loss without effective treatment. In Toronto, Candida had been the most common species over a 20-year period. Poor clinical outcome was associated with low presenting visual acuity, previous corneal transplant, topical steroid use, trauma, and Candida involvement.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".