A probiotic drink prevented diarrhoea and<i>Clostridium difficile–</i>associated diarrhoea in older patients taking antibioticsCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
M Hickson Dr M Hickson, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK; mary.hickson@imperial.nhs.uk Does a probiotic drink prevent diarrhoea and Clostridium difficile– associated diarrhoea in older adults receiving antibiotics in hospital? ### Design: randomised controlled trial (RCT). ### Allocation: concealed. ### Blinding: blinded (patients, {clinicians, data collectors, outcome assessors, data analysts, monitoring committee}*). ### Follow-up period: 4 weeks after discharge. ### Setting: 3 hospitals in London, UK. ### Patients: 135 patients >50 years of age (mean age 74 y, 54% women) who were receiving antibiotics (single or multiple, oral or intravenous) and were able to take food and drinks. Exclusion criteria included diarrhoea on admission or recurrent diarrhoea; bowel pathology that could cause diarrhoea; intake of high-risk antibiotics (ie, clindamycin, cephalosporins, or aminopenicillins) or >2 courses of other antibiotics in the past 4 weeks; severe life-threatening illness; immunosuppression; bowel surgery; artificial heart valve; history of rheumatic heart disease or infective endocarditis; probiotic treatment before admission; and intolerance to lactose …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".