MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985950425 · doi:10.1017/s0950268807009387

Predictors of <i>Clostridium difficile</i> colitis infections in hospitals

2007· article· en· W1985950425 on OpenAlexaff
Rocco Ricciardi, Kathleen Harriman, Nancy N. Baxter, Lacey Hartman, Robert Town, Beth A Virnig

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology and Infection · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClostridium difficileMedicineInfection controlEmergency medicineEpidemiologyEnvironmental healthIntensive care medicineInternal medicineBiologyMicrobiologyAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hospital-level predictors of high rates of 'Clostridium difficile-associated disease' (CDAD) were evaluated in over 2300 hospitals across California, Arizona, and Minnesota. American Hospital Association data were used to determine hospital characteristics associated with high rates of CDAD. Significant correlations were found between hospital rates of CDAD, common infections and other identified pathogens. Hospitals in urban areas had higher average rates of CDAD; yet, irrespective of geographic location, hospital rates of CDAD were associated with other infections. In addition, hospitals with 'high CDAD' rates had slower turnover of beds and were more likely to offer transplant services. These results reveal large differences in rates of CDAD across regions. Hospitals with high rates of CDAD have high rates of other common infections, suggesting a need for broad infection control policies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiology and InfectionSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207