Treatment of Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis and Preventive and Empirical Therapy for Invasive Candidiasis in Adult Pulmonary and Critical Care Patients: An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The incidence of invasive fungal infections is increasing in immune-competent and immune-compromised patients. An examination of the recent literature related to the treatment of fungal infections was performed to address two clinical questions. First, in patients with proven or probable invasive pulmonary aspergillosis, should combination therapy with a mold-active triazole plus echinocandin be administered versus mold-active triazole monotherapy? Second, in critically ill patients at risk for invasive candidiasis who are nonneutropenic and are not transplant recipients, should systemic antifungal agents be administered either as prophylaxis or as empiric therapy? Methods A multidisciplinary panel reviewed the available data concerning the two questions. The evidence was evaluated, and recommendations were generated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Results A conditional recommendation was made for patients with proven or probable invasive pulmonary aspergillosis to receive either initial combination therapy with a mold-active triazole plus an echinocandin or initial mold-active triazole monotherapy, based on low-quality evidence. Furthermore, a conditional weak recommendation was made against routine administration of prophylactic or empiric antifungal agents targeting Candida species for critically ill patients without neutropenia or a history of transplant, based on low-quality evidence. Conclusions The recommendations presented in these guidelines are the result of an analysis of currently available evidence. Additional research and new clinical data will prompt an update in the future.
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 | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".