Prospective Evaluation of the Fungitell® (1→3) <scp>Beta‐D‐Glucan</scp> Assay as a Diagnostic Tool for Invasive Fungal Disease in Pediatric Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Report from the Children's Oncology Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal disease (IFD) is a major source of morbidity and mortality for hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients. Non-invasive biomarkers, such as the beta-D-glucan assay, may improve the diagnosis of IFD. The objective was to define the utility of surveillance testing using Fungitell® beta-D-glucan (BDG) assay in children receiving antifungal prophylaxis in the immediate post-HCT period. METHODS: Weekly surveillance blood testing with the Fungitell® BDG assay was performed during the early post-HCT period in the context of a randomized trial of children, adolescents, and young adults undergoing allogeneic HCT allocated to triazole or caspofungin prophylaxis. Positivity was defined at the manufacturer cutoff of 80 pg/ml. IFD was adjudicated using blinded central reviewers. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for the Fungitell® BDG assay for the outcome of proven or probable IFD. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients (out of 290 patients in the parent trial) contributed blood specimens. In total, 278 specimens were evaluated. Specificity was 80.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 75.6%-85.3%), and NPV was over 99% (95% CI: 86.8%-99.9%). However, there were no true positive results, resulting in sensitivity of 0% (95% CI: 0.0%-84.2%) and PPV of 0% (95% CI: 0.0%-6.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Fungitell® BDG screening is of limited utility in diagnosing IFD in the post-HCT period, mainly due to high false-positive rates. Fungitell® BDG surveillance testing should not be performed in children during the early post-HCT period while receiving antifungal prophylaxis as the pretest probability for IFD is low.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".