Cited by 61Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFungal Infections and Studies

An update on current and novel molecular diagnostics for the diagnosis of invasive fungal infections

Open access
Jenks, Jeffrey D., White, P. Lewis, Kidd, Sarah E., Goshia, Tyler, Fraley, Stephanie I., Hoenigl, Martin, Thompson, George R.·2023·Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal infections cause millions of infections annually, but diagnosis remains challenging. There is an increased need for low-cost, easy to use, highly sensitive and specific molecular assays that can differentiate between colonized and pathogenic organisms from different clinical specimens. AREAS COVERED: We reviewed the literature evaluating the current state of molecular diagnostics for invasive fungal infections, focusing on current and novel molecular tests such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), digital PCR, high-resolution melt (HRM), and metagenomics/next generation sequencing (mNGS). EXPERT OPINION: PCR is highly sensitive and specific, although performance can be impacted by prior/concurrent antifungal use. PCR assays can identify mutations associated with antifungal resistance, non-Aspergillus mold infections, and infections from endemic fungi. HRM is a rapid and highly sensitive diagnostic modality that can identify a wide range of fungal pathogens, including down to the species level, but multiplex assays are limited and HRM is currently unavailable in most healthcare settings, although universal HRM is working to overcome this limitation. mNGS offers a promising approach for rapid and hypothesis-free diagnosis of a wide range of fungal pathogens, although some drawbacks include limited access, variable performance across platforms, the expertise and costs associated with this method, and long turnaround times in real-world settings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14737159.2023.2267977

Cites

183 of 183 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The T2Candida panel is limited to five species of Candida: C. albicans, C. tropicalis, C. krusei, C. glabrata, and C. parapsilosis.

    “However, the panel is only limited to five species of Candida: C. albicans, C. tropicalis, C. krusei, C. glabrata, and C. parapsilosis.”

    From Epidemiology of Invasive Candidiasis (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

  • The T2Candida Panel does not require positive blood cultures compared to the BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification Panel.

    “The T2Candida Panel (T2 Biosystems, Lexington, MA, United States) does not require positive blood cultures compared to the commonly used BioFire® FilmArray® Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panel (BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States).”

    From Epidemiology of Invasive Candidiasis (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

  • The T2Candida panel has a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 94% across multiple studies.

    “The T2Candida panel has a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 94% across multiple studies.19”

    From Epidemiology of Invasive Candidiasis (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 184 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jenks, J. D., White, P. L., Kidd, S. E., Goshia, T., Fraley, S. I., Hoenigl, M., & Thompson, G. R.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • University Hospital of Wales (GB)
  • South Australia Pathology (AU)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Medical University of Graz (AT)
  • University of California Davis Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Jenks, Jeffrey D.
Venue
Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics
Published
2023-10-10
Volume
23
Issue
12
Pages
1135-1152
ISSN
  • 1473-7159 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-8352
OpenAlex
W4387397825
Cited by
61
References
184
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 1
FWCI
2.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  • National Institutes of Health (R01AI134982)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Fungal Infections and Studies
Keywords
invasive fungal infections, molecular diagnosis, PCR, digital PCR, high-resolution melting analysis, metagenomic next-generation sequencing, endemic fungal infection, species identification
MeSH terms
Invasive Fungal Infections, Antifungal Agents, Fungi, Humans, Mycoses, Sensitivity and Specificity, Pathology, Molecular

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review