Determining Mortality Rates Attributable to<i>Clostridium difficile</i>Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine accuracy of measures of deaths attributable to Clostridium diffi cile infection, we compared 3 measures for 2007-2008 in Ontario, Canada: death certifi cate; death within 30 days of infection; and panel review.Data on death within 30 days were more feasible than panel review and more accurate than death certifi cate data.C lostridium diffi cile infection (CDI) has emerged as a major health care-associated infection; incidence, hospitalizations, and mortality rates are increasing (1,2).Reported case-fatality rates are 6%-30% and seem to be rising (3,4).The reporting of CDI-associated deaths could be considered a quality indicator; however, the accuracy of death certifi cate data is questionable (5).We analyzed CDI deaths in 3 hospitals in Ontario, Canada, and compared 3 measures for attributing death to CDI: death certifi cate, death within 30 days of CDI, and a panel review process (considered the reference standard).Use of trade names is for identifi cation only and does not imply endorsement by the Public Health Service or by the US Department of Health and Human Services.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".