MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050655684 · doi:10.1086/658336

Comparison of Clinical Severity Score Indices for <i>Clostridium difficile</i> Infection

2011· article· en· W2050655684 on OpenAlex
Shigeki Fujitani, W. Lance George, A. Rekha Murthy

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection Control and Hospital Epidemiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Center, University of PittsburghCedars-Sinai Medical Center
KeywordsMedicineClostridium difficileInternal medicineConfidence intervalObservational studyIntensive care unitAPACHE IIColectomyProspective cohort studyMultivariate analysisSeverity of illnessDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare 8 severity score indices for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). DESIGN: Prospective observational study. METHODS: This study was conducted from July through October 2006. All hospitalized patients in 3 university-affiliated hospitals with a positive fecal Clostridium difficile toxin assay result were evaluated. Infection was considered severe if patients had at least 1 of the following clinical events during their hospitalization: (1) death attributed to CDI within 30 days after diagnosis, (2) colectomy necessitated by CDI, or (3) intensive care unit admission for management of complications attributed to CDI. Severity was assessed on the basis of 8 severity score indices, using published criteria for severe CDI as the benchmark. The 8 severity score indices studied were Beth Israel, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center version 1, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center version 2, Hines VA, modified University of Illinois, University of Calgary version 1, University of Calgary version 2, and University of Temple. RESULTS: Of 184 patients with CDI evaluated, 19 had severe cases and 165 had nonsevere cases, as assessed on the basis of the defined severe CDI criteria. Sensitivities of the 8 severity score indices studied ranged from 63.2% to 84.2%, and specificities ranged from 59.4% to 93.9%. The Hines VA index had the highest kappa score (0.69 [95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.83]), followed by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center version 1 index. Independent risk factors for severe CDI determined by multivariate analysis were abdominal distention (P = .007), fever (temperature, 38.0°C or above; P = .042), white blood cell count of at least 20,000 cells/mm(3) (P = .035), and hypoalbuminemia (serum albumin level less than 3 mg/dL; P = .029). CONCLUSION: The Hines VA CDI severity score index appeared to display the strongest correlation for predicting more severe forms of CDI.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.274 · 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