Clostridium Difficile-Associated Diarrhea in 200 Canadian Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea is a major problem in adults. The present study was conducted to assess risk factors and outcomes in children with C difficile-associated diarrhea. METHODS: Laboratory records at a university-affiliated pediatric hospital were reviewed for all C difficile toxin-positive stools (cell culture cytotoxin assay) between 2000 and 2003. Charts on identified patients were reviewed. RESULTS: Two hundred patients with a diagnosis of C difficile-associated diarrhea were identified between February 2000 and November 2003. There were 107 males and 93 females (mean age 5.4 years; median age 2.6 years). Underlying factors were identified in 19% (12 patients underwent chemotherapy; seven patients had Crohn's disease; six were transplantation recipients; seven an immunodeficiency; four with Hirschsprung disease; two diagnoses of 'other'). Of the 200 identified patients, 149 (74.5%) had documentation of antibiotics in the previous two months (32 penicillins; 38 cephalosporins; three clindamycin, nine other single-agent, 59 multiple; eight not specified), and 111 (55.5%) had been hospitalized in the previous month. The symptoms of C difficile-associated diarrhea included bloody stools in 12.5% and frequent watery stools in 79%. Hospitalization was required in 27 of 116 outpatients; stay was prolonged in seven of the 84 patients already hospitalized. Fifty-five per cent received metronidazole, 34% were not treated, and treatment data were not available for the remainder. Recurrence occurred in 31% of those treated and retreatment consisted of vancomycin (15%), probiotics (15%) and cholestyramine (6%). No colectomies were required but two deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of pediatric patients developing symptomatic C difficile-associated diarrhea had antibiotic exposure or hospitalization within the previous one to two months. This is higher than previously reported. One-third had spontaneous symptom resolution. For those treated, recurrence rates were high. Mortality was significantly lower than described in adults, in agreement with prior literature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".