Is colectomy for fulminant <i>Clostridium difficile</i> colitis life saving? A systematic review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: It is unclear whether colectomy for fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis (FCDC) leads to a improvement in survival compared with continued medical therapy for this moribund population. METHOD: Selected studies from 1994-2010 were identified through a comprehensive search theme applied to MEDLINE (OvidSP and PubMed), EMBASE and by hand searching. Data regarding mortality rates between medically and surgically treated patients were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using a Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score. A meta-analysis of the odds ratios for mortality between surgical and medical treatment for FCDC was conducted using the Mantel-Haenszel method and fixed-effects modelling. RESULTS: Five hundred and ten patients with FCDC were identified in six studies. The pooled adjusted odds ratio of mortality comparing surgery with medical therapy was 0.70 (0.49-0.99), suggesting that surgery provided a survival benefit. CONCLUSION: Emergent colectomy for patients with FCDC provides a survival advantage compared with continuing antibiotics. Though there is selection bias of patients having surgery, the results of this systematic review suggest that colectomy has a therapeutic role in treating severe forms of C. difficile colitis.
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 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 it