Comparison of the clinical manifestations and chest CT findings of pulmonary cryptococcosis in immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to perform a meta-analysis and systematic review to compare differences in clinical manifestations and chest computed tomography (CT) findings between immunocompetent and immunocompromised pulmonary cryptococcosis (PC) patients. METHODS: An extensive search for relevant studies was performed using the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Sciences databases from inception to September 30, 2021. We included studies that compared the clinical manifestations and chest CT findings between immunocompetent and immunocompromised PC patients. Study bias and quality assessment were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: Nine studies involving 248 immunocompromised and 276 immunocompetent PC patients were included in our analysis. The NOS score of each eligible study was above 5, indicating moderate bias. The proportion of elderly patients (> = 60 years old) in the immunosuppressed group was significantly higher than that in the immunocompetent group (OR = 2.90, 95% CI (1.31-6.43), Z = 2.63, p = 0.01). Fever (OR = 7.10, 95% CI (3.84-13.12), Z = 6.25, p < 0.000) and headache (OR = 6.92, 95% CI (2.95-16.26), Z = 4.44, p < 0.000) were more common in immunosuppressed patients. According to thin-section CT findings, lesions were more frequently distributed in the upper lobe (OR = 1.90, 95% CI (1.07-3.37), Z = 2.2, p = 0.028) in immunocompromised individuals. The proportions of patients with cavity sign (OR = 5.11, 95% CI (2.96-8.83), Z = 5.86, p = 0.00), ground-glass attenuation (OR = 5.27, 95% CI (1.60-17.35), Z = 2.73, p = 0.01), and mediastinal lymph node enlargement (OR = 2.41, 95% CI (1.12-5.20), Z = 2.24, p = 0.03) were significantly higher in immunocompromised patients. CONCLUSION: No significant differences in nonspecific respiratory symptoms were found between immunocompromised and immunocompetent PC patients. Nevertheless, fever and headache were more common in immunocompromised patients. Among the CT findings, cavity, ground-glass attenuation, and mediastinal lymph node enlargement were more common in immunocompromised individuals.
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 | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".