ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Diagnostic efficiency of inflammatory signatures to distinguish isolated candidemia from candidemia with bacterial co-infection.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To identify the differences in inflammatory response between critically ill patients responding to combined bacterial-fungal sepsis and those with isolated fungal sepsis. Methods: A retrospective case-control study compared ICU patients who were exposed (n=24) and unexposed (n=20) to candidemia. Two exposure modes were analyzed: isolated candidemia (C; n=12) versus candidemia with bacterial co-infection (BC; n=12). Targeted proximity extension assay (PEA) was used to examine differences in serum inflammatory proteome between groups. Differential inflammatory proteins served as input for a logistic regression model to validate their effectiveness in discrimination. Results: Two major clusters-candidemia cases and controls-were identified based on differential protein expression analysis. In five-fold cross-validation, LAP-TGF beta-1 was identified as the main driver, effectively distinguishing isolated candidemia [AUC 0.95; 95% CI 0.853-1.000]. TRANCE and IL-17C showed potential as a diagnostic signature indicating bacterial co-infection in the context of candidemia. Discussion: The three-protein logistic regression panel (LAP-TGF beta-1, TRANCE and IL-17C) differentiated cases with isolated candidemia from those with candidemia and bacterial co-infection [AUC 0.82; 95% CI 0.629-0.968]. A three-protein inflammatory signature distinguished isolated fungal sepsis from combined bacterial-fungal sepsis. This study is the first to explore the inflammatory response to differentiate isolated candidemia from candidemia with bacterial co-infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.