Inpatient ophthalmology consultations for candidemia: a literature review and opinion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To examine the role of the ophthalmologist in screening for ocular candidiasis in patients with Candidemia . RECENT FINDINGS: Recent evidence has shown that previously published incidence rates of endophthalmitis in Candidemia were overestimating risk due to nonuniform guidelines. Newer data suggest a very low rate of endophthalmitis in the Candidemia population. There is currently a lack of definitive data proving that retinal findings lead to significant changes in the clinical management of patients with regards to systemic treatment and overall outcomes. SUMMARY: Given the low rates of endophthalmitis, minimal management changes with positive retinal findings, and recently published guidelines from the American Academy of Ophthalmology, we posit that ocular screening of all patients with Candidemia is not warranted. However, more research is required to better delineate high-risk features that could guide which patients would require ophthalmologic examination. Further collaboration between ophthalmology and infectious disease specialists is vital to create new evidence-based guidelines based on the recent data.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".