MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283806824 · doi:10.1007/s40123-022-00542-7

Pythium insidiosum Keratitis: Past, Present, and Future

2022· review· en· W4283806824 on OpenAlexafffund
Bharat Gurnani, Kirandeep Kaur, Shweta Agarwal, Vaitheeswaran G. Lalgudi, Nakul Shekhawat, Anitha Venugopal, Koushik Tripathy, Bhaskar Srinivasan, Geetha Iyer, Joseph Gubert

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology and Therapy · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicInfectious Diseases and Mycology
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of OttawaNational Eye InstituteJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsFungal keratitisHypopyonKeratitisOomyceteNatamycinPathologyBiologyMicrobiologyMedicineDermatologyOphthalmologyPathogenEndophthalmitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pythium insidiosum (PI) is an oomycete, a protist belonging to the clade Stramenopila. PI causes vision-threatening keratitis closely mimicking fungal keratitis (FK), hence it is also labeled as "parafungus". PI keratitis was initially confined to Thailand, USA, China, and Australia, but with growing clinical awareness and improvement in diagnostic modalities, the last decade saw a massive upsurge in numbers with the majority of reports coming from India. In the early 1990s, pythiosis was classified as vascular, cutaneous, gastrointestinal, systemic, and ocular. Clinically, morphologically, and microbiologically, PI keratitis closely resembles severe FK and requires a high index of clinical suspicion for diagnosis. The clinical features such as reticular dot infiltrate, tentacular projections, peripheral thinning with guttering, and rapid limbal spread distinguish it from other microorganisms. Routine smearing with Gram and KOH stain reveals perpendicular septate/aseptate hyphae, which closely mimic fungi and make the diagnosis cumbersome. The definitive diagnosis is the presence of dull grey/brown refractile colonies along with zoospore formation upon culture by leaf induction method. However, culture is time-consuming, and currently polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method is the gold standard. The value of other diagnostic modalities such as confocal microscopy and immunohistopathological assays is limited due to cost, non-availability, and limited diagnostic accuracy. PI keratitis is a relatively rare disease without established treatment protocols. Because of its resemblance to fungus, it was earlier treated with antifungals but with an improved understanding of its cell wall structure and absence of ergosterol, this is no longer recommended. Currently, antibacterials have shown promising results. Therapeutic keratoplasty with good margin (1 mm) is mandated for non-resolving cases and corneal perforation. In this review, we have deliberated on the evolution of PI keratitis, covered all the recently available literature, described our current understanding of the diagnosis and treatment, and the potential future diagnostic and management options for PI keratitis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmology and TherapySame topicInfectious Diseases and MycologyFrench-language works237,207