<i>Candida blankii</i> : The Difficult Capture of a Fungus With Pathogenic Potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Candida blankii has recently emerged as a pathogen of clinical significance, particularly in cases of candidemia. Here, we present two cases involving adult patients with complex medical histories. In one case, C. blankii was considered clinically significant, while in the other, it was regarded as a colonizer. The first case involves an 85‐year‐old male with multiple comorbidities, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure, who presented with a pleural effusion. Blood cultures revealed yeast which could not be identified by matrix‐assisted laser desorption/ionization time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry (MALDI‐TOF MS), which was later identified as C. blankii after being sent to the provincial reference laboratory. The isolate showed high minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) to azoles. The second case involves a 60‐year‐old male with cirrhosis and multifocal pneumonia. C. blankii was isolated from bronchoalveolar lavage samples, though it was ultimately considered a colonizer rather than a pathogen in this instance. Initial identification via MALDI‐TOF MS was inconclusive, necessitating further molecular sequencing. The pathogen exhibited high MICs to azoles and lower MICs to echinocandins and polyenes. Both cases highlight the challenges in identifying C. blankii using conventional laboratory methods. Given the increasing reports of C. blankii as a pathogen, particularly in immunocompromised patients, our findings emphasize the need for heightened awareness and improved diagnostic techniques. Accurate and timely identification is crucial for appropriate therapeutic management, given the organism’s unique susceptibility profile. Further research is necessary to understand the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and optimal treatment strategies for C. blankii infections.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".