Urinary Tract Obstruction Secondary to Fungal Balls: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To understand the clinical characteristics, risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of urinary tract obstruction caused by fungal balls. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Medline following the PRISMA guidelines, including case reports and case series. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) document. The systematic review process was aimed at gathering and synthesising all available research evidence on the topic. Results: We included 54 articles reporting on 57 patients, primarily males (61.4%) with a median age of 56 years. The most common presenting symptoms were flank pain (71.9%) and fevers (59.6%). All diagnoses were made on the presence of yeast in urine or intra-operative tissue cultures and the presence of obstruction on imaging. The most common pathogen isolated were those of the Candida species (61.5%) followed by Aspergillus (33.3%). Multimodal management was the mainstay approach with the use of systemic and local antifungal therapy in combination with surgical drainage of the obstruction. The mortality rate was around 12.3%. Conclusions: Management of renal or ureteral obstruction caused by fungal balls requires a multimodal and multidisciplinary approach, comprising systemic antifungal therapy, drainage procedures, and in some instances, surgical intervention. The growing prevalence of antifungal resistance and the high mortality potential of fungal uropathy necessitates ongoing research into the optimal diagnostic and treatment modalities for this condition.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".