ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2019
Closing the Gap in Surveillance and Audit of Invasive Mold Diseases for Antifungal Stewardship Using Machine Learning.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outbreaks of Fungal Infections in Hospitals: Epidemiology, Detection, and Management.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Three-Dimensional Disease Outbreak Surveillance System in a Tertiary Hospital in Singapore: A Proof of Concept.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2023Article
- The Role of Diagnostics-Driven Antifungal Stewardship in the Management of Invasive Fungal Infections: A Systematic Literature Review.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Review
- When Azoles Cannot Be Used: The Clinical Effectiveness of Intermittent Liposomal Amphotericin Prophylaxis in Hematology Patients.Open forum infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Core Recommendations for Antifungal Stewardship: A Statement of the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2020Review
- Ushering in Antifungal Stewardship: Perspectives of the Hematology Multidisciplinary Team Navigating Competing Demands, Constraints, and Uncertainty.Open forum infectious diseases · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical audit of invasive mold disease (IMD) in hematology patients is inefficient due to the difficulties of case finding. This results in antifungal stewardship (AFS) programs preferentially reporting drug cost and consumption rather than measures that actually reflect quality of care. We used machine learning-based natural language processing (NLP) to non-selectively screen chest tomography (CT) reports for pulmonary IMD, verified by clinical review against international definitions and benchmarked against key AFS measures. NLP screened 3014 reports from 1 September 2008 to 31 December 2017, generating 784 positives that after review, identified 205 IMD episodes (44% probable-proven) in 185 patients from 50,303 admissions. Breakthrough-probable/proven-IMD on antifungal prophylaxis accounted for 60% of episodes with serum monitoring of voriconazole or posaconazole in the 2 weeks prior performed in only 53% and 69% of episodes, respectively. Fiberoptic bronchoscopy within 2 days of CT scan occurred in only 54% of episodes. The average turnaround of send-away bronchoalveolar galactomannan of 12 days (range 7-22) was associated with high empiric liposomal amphotericin consumption. A random audit of 10% negative reports revealed two clinically significant misses (0.9%, 2/223). This is the first successful use of applied machine learning for institutional IMD surveillance across an entire hematology population describing process and outcome measures relevant to AFS. Compared to current methods of clinical audit, semi-automated surveillance using NLP is more efficient and inclusive by avoiding restrictions based on any underlying hematologic condition, and has the added advantage of being potentially scalable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.