Current situation of endemic mycosis in the Americas and the Caribbean: Proceedings of the first international meeting on endemic mycoses of the Americas (<scp>IMEMA</scp>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Americas are home to biologically and clinically diverse endemic fungi, including Blastomyces, Coccidioides, Emergomyces, Histoplasma, Paracoccidioides and Sporothrix. In endemic areas with high risk of infection, these fungal pathogens represent an important public health problem. OBJECTIVES: This report aims to summarise the main findings of the regional analysis carried out on the status of the endemic mycoses of the Americas, done at the first International Meeting on Endemic Mycoses of the Americas (IMEMA). METHODS: A regional analysis for the Americas was done, the 27 territories were grouped into nine regions. A SWOT analysis was done. RESULTS: All territories reported availability of microscopy. Seventy percent of territories reported antibody testing, 67% of territories reported availability of Histoplasma antigen testing. None of the territories reported the use of (1-3)-β-d-glucan. Fifty two percent of territories reported the availability of PCR testing in reference centres (mostly for histoplasmosis). Most of the territories reported access to medications such as trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, itraconazole, voriconazole and amphotericin B (AMB) deoxycholate. Many countries had limited access to liposomal formulation of AMB and newer azoles, such as posaconazole and isavuconazole. Surveillance of these fungal diseases was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus emerged among meeting participants, this group concluded that endemic mycoses are neglected diseases, and due to their severity and lack of resources, the improvement of diagnosis, treatment and surveillance is needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".