Pathway to Prevention of Nosocomial Clostridium difficile Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To address the significant morbidity and mortality rates associated with nosocomial Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD), a series of recommendations and a pathway to prevention were developed. METHODS: An expert panel of infectious disease (ID) specialists participated in a modified Delphi process with specific objectives: (1) conduct a review for CDAD and prevention; (2) develop statements based upon panel members' opinions; (3) hold a panel meeting during the 2012 IDWeek; and (4) review the final recommendations and prevention pathway prior to submission for publication. RESULTS: The panel voted on (1) antibiotic stewardship (7 of 8 panelists); (2) reduction of other potentially modifiable risk factors (variable); (3) utilization of specific probiotics to prevent C. difficile overgrowth (8/8); (4) staff education regarding CDAD preventive measures (8/8); (5) appropriate hand hygiene for everyone (7/8); (6) environmental cleaning (8/8); (7) medical equipment disinfection (7/8); (8) early detection of CDAD in symptomatic patients (7/8); (9) usage of protective clothing/gloves (8/8); (10) proper measures during outbreak (8/8); and (11) surveillance to monitor efficacy data of preventive measures (8/8). CONCLUSIONS: The panel members agreed with 11 of 17 recommendations presented. The additional recommendations by the panel were proton pump inhibitor use as a risk factor and the use of adjunctive therapy with specific probiotic, as it was approved by Health Canada for the risk reduction of CDAD in hospitalized patients.
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 | 0.028 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.008 |
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".