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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.092
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