MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4310107622 · doi:10.1182/blood-2022-169665

Epidemiology and Disease Burden of Mucormycosis in Canada: Canmus Registry

2022· article· en· W4310107622 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shariq Haider, Allison Mah, C. Arianne Buchan, Donald C. Vinh, Tony D Bai, Eric J. Bow, Matthew P. Cheng, Phillipe Dufresne, Simon F. Dufresne, Jodi Faulkner, Shahid Husain, Me‐Linh Luong, Stephen Robinson, Stephen Sanche, Ilan S. Schwartz, Sarah Shalhoub, Thuva Vanniyasingam, Coleman Rotstein

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie UniversityWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoCancerCare ManitobaUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversité de MontréalInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecToronto General HospitalMcMaster UniversityConcordia UniversityMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of OttawaJuravinski HospitalQueen's UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpidemiologyMucormycosisMedicineDisease registryDiseaseGerontologyFamily medicineIntensive care medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The burden of mucormycosis has increased with the expansion of risk groups and improved diagnosis. Although diabetes mellitus has been the leading risk factor for mucormycosis globally, the emergence of risk groups such as hemato-oncology patients, allogeneic bone marrow transplantation and solid organ transplantation have shifted the epidemiology of mucormycosis. There is a paucity of literature describing the burden, clinical presentation, treatment and outcomes of mucormycosis in Canada. CANMUS (Canadian Mucormycosis Study)is a national registry with broad geographical representation ,that will assess the epidemiology and clinical outcomes of Canadian patients affected by mucormycosis. Here we assess the outcomes at 6 and 12 weeks of therapy and last clinical assessment. Methods This retrospective registry involving 15 centers across Canada, from 1/1/2009 to 1/31/2020 using pathology/microbiology records to identify proven cases of mucormycosis in patients ≥18 years of age. Patient medical record data were collected and reported in a web-based data management program (REDCap). Descriptive statistics analyzed both categorical and continuous data. Cox proportional hazards models were used to explore risk factors for 6 and 12-week survival. Logistical regression was employed to investigate factors associated with positive clinical outcomes (defined as partial or complete response versus stable disease or progression). Results Interim data was available on 108 patients. The mean age was 53 (range 20-91) and 55.6% were male patients. The leading diagnostic risk factor for mucormycosis was hematological malignancy (50.9%, of which AML comprised 54.5%) followed by diabetes mellitus (25%). The most common sites of infection were: pulmonary (42.6%) rhino-sinus and/or orbital and/or cerebral (22.2%) and cutaneous (18%). The distribution of pathogens was: Mucor spp. (45.2%), Rhizopus spp. (34.5%) and Lichtheimia spp. (10.7%). Clinical response (composite of complete and partial responses) at 6 and 12 weeks was 31% and 29%, respectively. Survival analyses will be presented using hazard ratios and confidence intervals (CI). Logistic regression of factors associated with a positive clinical response will also be presented. Conclusions The epidemiology of mucormycosis in Canada is evolving. Hematological malignancies rather than diabetes are the major predisposing risk factor for mucormycosis with Mucor spp. being the predominant pathogen. Despite modest advances in therapies, outcomes remain poor.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility→French-language works237,207→