MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973308718 · doi:10.3201/eid1810.120202

Attributing Cause of Death for Patients with<i>Clostridium difficile</i>Infection

2012· letter· en· W1973308718 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rodica Gilca, Charles Frenette, Nathanaelle Thériault, Élise Fortin, Jasmin Villeneuve

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging infectious diseases · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClostridium difficileMicrobiologyClostridium InfectionsMedicineClostridiumBiologyAntibioticsBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: Hota et al. report that for deceased patients who had Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), agreement is poor between causes of death reported on death certificates and those categorized by a review panel (1). Our data support the difficulty of attributing cause of death for patients with CDI. In 2004 in Quebec, Canada, a mandatory CDI surveillance program was implemented. Deaths that occurred within 30 days after CDI diagnosis were classified as 1) directly attributable to CDI (e.g., toxic megacolon, septic shock), 2) having a CDI contribution (e.g., acute decompensation of chronic heart failure), or 3) unrelated to CDI (e.g., terminal cancer) (2). To determine accuracy of the surveillance classifications, we compared cause-of-death classification of 22 deceased CDI patients reported to surveillance by 1 hospital in 2007 with causes of death reported by 13 external reviewers who examined summaries of medical files of the deceased patients. Reviewers were 11 infectious disease and 2 public health physicians involved with CDI surveillance at their respective hospitals but not this hospital. The median (minimal, maximal) κ statistics for comparison of external reviews with surveillance classification were 0.495 (0.252, 0.607) for directly attributable, 0.182 (−0.091, 0.182) for contributed, and 0.321 (0.124, 0.614) for unrelated. Comparison within external reviewers yielded 0.697 (0.394, 1.0), 0.233 (−0.294, 0.703), and 0.542 (0.154, 0.909), respectively. Complete agreement was found for only 6 cases (4 directly attributable and 2 unrelated) (Figure). Figure Classification of cause of death among 22 patients with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), by 13 external reviewers, Quebec, Canada, 2007. Bars indicate the number of reviewers who assigned each category. Gray bars indicate that CDI was unrelated ... Variation among reviewers suggested that categorizations reported to surveillance were inaccurate. Number of deaths among patients with CDI, regardless of the cause of death, seemed to better indicate CDI severity. Since 2008, only the crude numbers of deaths, not subjected to individual interpretation, have been reported to surveillance. A questionnaire addressing concurrent medical conditions, prognosis, level of care, and circumstances of death is being implemented in Quebec hospitals participating in CDI surveillance and should help determine the role of CDI in deaths.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerging infectious diseasesSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207