Challenges in Management of Disseminated Mucormycotic Infection with Endocarditis in an Adult Patient Receiving Liver Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Yue Wu,1,2,* Xinyu Yu,1,2,* Yuntao Zhang,1,2 Junfang Liu,1,2 Ying Chen,1,2 Rongrong Wang,3 Wei Zhang1,2 1Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China; 2Liver Transplant Center, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China; 3Department of Clinical Pharmacy, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Wei Zhang, Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China, Email 1307018@zju.edu.cn Rongrong Wang, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China, Email 1513056@zju.edu.cnAbstract: Mucormycosis is a rare fungal infection. With the recent advancements in diagnostic technologies, including molecular diagnostic techniques, such as PCR and metagenomic next-generation sequencing, the detection rates of mucormycosis have increased. However, its mortality rates remain alarmingly high. Although post-liver transplantation mucormycosis cases are infrequently reported (less than 1%), their mortality rate ranges from 60% to 90%, while mucormycotic endocarditis is even rarer. This article summarizes the clinical manifestations of mucormycosis in a post-liver transplantation adult patient and reviews the existing literature on mucormycotic endocarditis, with the aim of outlining its clinical features, diagnostic challenges, and therapeutic strategies.Keywords: mucormycosis, endocarditis, liver transplantation, metagenomic next-generation sequencing, Rhizomucor, Cunninghamella
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".