MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101963923 · doi:10.1186/1471-2334-13-148

Derivation and validation of a simple clinical bedside score (ATLAS) for Clostridium difficile infection which predicts response to therapy

2013· article· en· W2101963923 on OpenAlexaff
Mark A. Miller, Thomas Louie, Kathleen M. Mullane, Karl Heinz Weiss, Arnold Lentnek, Yoav Golan, Yin Kean, Pam Sears

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Infectious Diseases · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontUniversity of CalgaryJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFidaxomicinMedicineCohortInternal medicineClostridium difficileKappaVancomycinAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) continues to be a frequent and potentially severe infection. There is currently no validated clinical tool for use at the time of CDI diagnosis to categorize patients in order to predict response to therapy. METHODS: Six clinical and laboratory variables, measured at the time of CDI diagnosis, were combined in order to assess their correlation with treatment response in a large CDI clinical trial database (derivation cohort). The final categorization scheme was chosen in order to maximize the number of categories (discrimination) while maintaining a high correlation with clinical cure assessed two days after the end of therapy. Validation of the derived scoring scheme was done on a second large CDI clinical trial database (validation cohort). A third comparison was done on the two pooled databases (pooled cohort). RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, the best discrimination and correlation with cure was seen with a five-component ATLAS score (age, treatment with systemic antibiotics, leukocyte count, albumin and serum creatinine as a measure of renal function), which divided CDI patients into 11 groups (scores of 0 to 10 inclusive) and was highly correlated with treatment outcome (R(2) = 0.95; P<0.001). This scheme showed excellent prediction of cure in the validation cohort (overall Kappa = 95.2%; P<0.0001), as well as in the pooled cohort, regardless of treatment (fidaxomicin or vancomycin). CONCLUSIONS: A combination of five simple and commonly available clinical and laboratory variables measured at the time of CDI diagnosis, combined into a scoring system (ATLAS), are able to accurately predict treatment response to CDI therapy. The ATLAS scoring system may be useful in stratifying CDI patients so that appropriate therapies can be chosen to maximize cure rates, as well as for categorization of patients in CDI therapeutic studies in order allow comparisons of patient groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations140
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Infectious DiseasesSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207