Risk Factors for Delayed Recurrence of<i>Clostridium difficile</i>Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
study by Kim et al., of 125 patients that developed C. difficileassociated diarrhea, 27 patients (21.6%) experienced one or more recurrence, and the risk factors for the CDI recurrence were identified as advanced age (over 65 years), a serum albumin level below 2.5 g/dL, and concurrent use of proton pump inhibitors.8 Jung et al. suggested that a history of surgery is a predictor of recurrence after metronidazole treatment of CDI. 9 In a study by Ryu et al., patients who received tube feeding were at an increased risk of recurrent CDI. 10 However, in these studies, the recurrence of CDI was evaluated only between weeks and 90 days only.In the present study, 11 the authors investigated the longterm clinical outcomes of CDI in hospitalized patients in a single center.The authors evaluated delayed CDI recurrence after eight weeks of successful treatment response.The predictive factors associated with delayed CDI recurrence were tube feeding, and the use of anti-gastric acid medications.Tube feeding is a known risk factor for CDI because it can act as a transmission factor for C. difficile .Aseptic control of the feeding tube may aid in reducing contamination, and therefore preventing CDI.Another important result of this study is the mortality rate of patients with CDI.Although no deaths were attributed to CDI, the results of this study suggest that CDI may predict the poor prognosis of underlying diseases.As the authors mentioned, this study was limited in that it was retrospective, performed in a single center, and the hypervirulent strain was not evaluated appropriately.Another weak point of this study is that antacid medication history was not clearly defined.It would have been better if the authors had clarified the temporal relationship between ant- Risk Factors for Delayed Recurrence of Clostridium difficile Infection
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".