Practical Guidance for Clinical Microbiology Laboratories: Antibody and antigen detection methods for dimorphic fungal infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Antibody and antigen detection assays continue to play a significant role in the diagnosis of dimorphic fungal pathogens, including Blastomyces dermatitidis complex, Coccidioides immitis/posadasii , Paracoccidioides species, Histoplasma species , Sporothrix species, and Talaromyces marneffei . The performance characteristics of serologic and antigen detection assays for these pathogens are variable, however, influenced by multiple factors, including sample type, disease presentation, patient immunostatus, and timing of specimen collection relative to symptom onset. As a result, there is a need for a centralized document summarizing the accuracy of currently available antibody and antigen detection assays for each of these agents, including discussion of individual assay nuances and caveats that should be considered by clinicians and laboratorians alike. In addition, this review provides expert recommendations for the utilization and interpretation of serologic and antigen detection assays for these dimorphic pathogens.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.013 |
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".