Systematic fungal biomarker or polymerase chain reaction testing in lung transplant recipients: Retrospective analysis to optimize their use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among lung transplant recipients, serial bronchoscopies are performed frequently. Often, serial galactomannan (GM), 1,3-β-d-glucan (BDG), and Pneumocystis jirovecii (PJ) testing is performed with these broncho-alveolar lavages (BALs) as standard of care with limited data to support their routine use. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, we retrospectively collected all blood and BAL GM, BDG, and PJ test results from January 2015 to July 20, 2022. Primary data collection from the Northwestern Medicine EDW was supplemented by manual chart review. RESULTS: During the study period, 236 lung transplant recipients were cared for by our center. Of these patients, 217 (91.9%) had 1418 GM tests performed; 61 (4.3%) were positive (index ≥1). Fungal cultures were requested for most BAL-GM (90.7%). Out of duplicates in same BAL, results discrepancy was minimal (3.4%). 172 (72.9%) had BDG tests were performed; 25.6% were positive. Thirteen patients had multiple BDG during one hospitalization (mean 2.3 tests); none of the negative test repeated became positive. Eleven negative BDG were seen in patients with invasive aspergillosis (IA). Note that, 577 PJ testing were performed (direct fluorescent antibody [n = 494] or polymerase chain reaction [PCR] [n = 80], or both [n = 3]) in 174 different patients. None were positive. CONCLUSION: Despite supplemental GM, BDG, and Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia PCR being performed routinely on lung transplant recipients undergoing BAL at our center, the data suggests a more tailored approach may be appropriate. There is no role for routine serial testing with these assays during a single hospitalization. BDG confers no added-value over GM with cultures for IA diagnosis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".