MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415700958 · doi:10.1128/jcm.01236-24

Non-invasive diagnosis of invasive fungal disease with cell-free DNA PCR

2025· review· en· W4415700958 on OpenAlexaff
Jordan Mah, Anthony Lieu, Niaz Banaei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsVancouver Infectious Diseases CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolymerase chain reactionFungal diseaseReal-time polymerase chain reactionMycosisDiagnostic testGold standard (test)Aspergillosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Invasive fungal disease (IFD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the immunocompromised population. Early diagnosis is challenging due to the low sensitivity and non-specificity of non-invasive fungal biomarkers, the need for invasive specimen collection, and the limitations of culture and histopathology. Detection of circulating fungal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma and serum by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) represents a novel testing modality for rapid and accurate diagnosis of IFD. In this review, we summarize the performance characteristics of fungal cfDNA PCR for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis, mucormycosis, and Pneumocystis pneumonia. We discuss a testing algorithm that incorporates fungal cfDNA and the added diagnostic value of invasive specimen collection when non-invasive mold cfDNA PCR is performed first. Lastly, we discuss the role of diagnostic stewardship in fungal cfDNA PCR testing.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207