Trends of pulmonary fungal infections from 2013 to 2019: an AI-based real-world observational study in Guangzhou, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the prevalence trend of pulmonary fungal infection (PFI) has rapidly increased. Changes in the risk factors for, distributions of underlying diseases associated with and clinical characteristics of some individual PFIs have been reported in the past decade. However, data regarding PFIs remain uncertain. This study reports the epidemiological characteristics and trends of PFIs over time in recent years. We applied an automated natural language processing (NLP) system to extract clinically relevant information from the electronic health records (EHRs) of PFI patients at the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University. Then, a trend analysis was performed. From January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2019, 40,504 inpatients and 219,414 outpatients with respiratory diseases were screened, in which 1368 inpatients and 1313 outpatients with PFI were identified. These patients were from throughout the country, but most patients were from southern China. Upward trends in PFIs were observed in both hospitalized patients and outpatients (P<0.05). The stratification by age showed that the incidence of hospitalized patients aged 14–30 years exhibited the most obvious upward trend, increasing from 9.5 per 1000 patients in 2013 to 88.3 per 1000 patients in 2019. Aspergillosis (56.69%) was the most common PFI, but notably, the incidence rates of Talaromyces marneffei, which used to be considered uncommon, exhibited the most rapid increases. In younger PFI patients, the incidence and trend of PFIs have increased. Infection by previously uncommon pathogens has also gradually increased. Increased attention should be paid to young PFI patients and uncommon PFI pathogen infections.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".