MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409905996 · doi:10.3138/jammi-2024-0001

Candidemia treatment is improved by infectious disease consultation: A population-based cohort study

2024· article· en· W4409905996 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Samuel Bourassa‐Blanchette, Marit M. Biesheuvel, John C. Lam, Alexander Kipp, Deirdre L. Church, Julie Carson, Bruce Dalton, Michael D. Parkins, Herman W. Barkema, Daniel B. Gregson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health ServicesGovernment of Newfoundland and LabradorMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortInfectious disease (medical specialty)Cohort studyPopulationDiseaseIntensive care medicinePediatricsInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Candidemia is a common bloodstream infection with morbidity and mortality. Both the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases and Infectious Diseases Society of America have evidence-based recommendations for its management. While infectious diseases consultation (IDC) reduced mortality, effects on guideline concordance remain unclear. Methods: We conducted a multicentre retrospective cohort study (2010–2018) in Canada to characterize the role of IDC in attaining evidence-based recommendations for adults with candidemia. Such recommendations include follow-up blood cultures to document blood clearance, prompt antifungal initiation and selection, source control, treatment duration determination, and ancillary investigations. We measured associations between IDC and adherence to evidence-based recommendations. Results: Patients with candidemia who received IDC were more likely not to be left without antifungal therapy (26% versus 4.8%). Echocardiograms were more common in noncritically ill patients with IDC (64% versus 44%; P < 0.01) and in all critically ill patients, irrespective of IDC status (75% versus 63%; P = 0.08). In patients with uncomplicated candidemia, treatment duration ≥14 days was similar with or without IDC (78% versus 70%; P = 0.15). Patients with complicated candidemia and IDC were more likely treated for ≥42 days (an appropriate duration; 100% versus 47%; P = 0.06). Fluconazole (transition therapy) was not affected by IDC for critically ill (41% and 29%; P = 0.34) or noncritically ill patients (34% versus 24%; P = 0.51). Mortality rates at 30 and 60 days after candidemia diagnosis were lower in patients receiving IDC ( P < 0.05). Conclusions: Best practice guidelines were issued for patients with candidemia; adherence varied, but involvement of an infectious disease physician increased implementation and was associated with considerably decreased mortality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.002
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease CanadaSame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207