MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108384961 · doi:10.3111/13696998.2011.629015

Savings from the use of a probiotic formula in the prophylaxis of antibiotic-associated diarrhea

2011· article· en· W2108384961 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Economics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersMicrosoft
KeywordsMedicineProbioticLactobacillus caseiPlaceboDiarrheaLactobacillus acidophilusContext (archaeology)Antibiotic-associated diarrheaIncidence (geometry)AntibioticsInternal medicineClostridium difficileMicrobiologyFood scienceBiologyFermentationAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) and particularly Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) are the most common causes of healthcare associated infectious diarrhea. A double-blind, dose response, placebo-controlled trial of the probiotic formula (Bio-K+ Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285 and Lactobacillus casei LBC80R formula) for prophylaxis of AAD and CDAD was published in 2010. The Bio-K+ Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285 and Lactobacillus casei LBC80R formula is a registered trademark of Bio-K Plus International Inc. (Laval, Québec, Canada). Results indicated that the incidence of AAD and CDAD were lower for patients assigned to the probiotic formula compared with the placebo option. The present study aims to estimate the savings in direct medical costs that might result from the use of two different doses of the probiotic formula vs placebo. METHODS: A cost-consequence analysis was conducted to compare the two doses of the probiotic formula compared to placebo. The analysis was based upon published data and adjusted to the North American context. RESULTS: Economic analyses showed that the use of the probiotic formula would result in estimated mean per patients savings of US$1968 for the single dose and US$2661 for the double dose compared with the placebo option if used an average of 13 days by all patients at risk of developing AAD and CDAD. LIMITATIONS: Several key parameters considered within the economic model were not captured within the Gao et al. study. Numerous sensitivity analyses were conducted to address this issue. CONCLUSION: The use of the probiotic formula in prophylaxis of AAD and CDAD would lead to estimated savings in direct medical costs that would substantially offset its acquisition cost. Treating 1000 hospitalized patients on antibiotics with the double dose of the product compared to current practice would save a single payer system the sum of $2,661,218.

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)0.003
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 score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.189 · 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