MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123455108 · doi:10.1086/587656

Vancomycin for the Treatment of<i>Clostridium difficile</i>Infection: For Whom Is This Expensive Bullet Really Magic?

2008· article· en· W2123455108 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetronidazoleMedicineVancomycinClostridium difficileMagic bulletInternal medicineEpidemiologyRandomized controlled trialCreatinineIntensive care medicineSurgeryAntibioticsMicrobiologyBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The epidemiology, clinical severity, and case-fatality ratio of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) changed dramatically with the emergence of a toxin hyperproducing strain (BI/NAP1/027) in North America and Europe in 2000. For the treatment of CDI, metronidazole and vancomycin remain the 2 most commonly used drugs. The 3 randomized controlled trials published thus far, as well as the upcoming tolevamer trial, use intermediate outcomes, rather than the outcomes that now preoccupy clinicians: the frequency of complications or recurrence. The major advantage of metronidazole is its low price. The major advantage of orally administered vancomycin is its more favorable pharmacokinetics. Facilitating vancomycin-resistant enterococci colonization and/or infection is a potential drawback of both drugs. Pending the development of a prospectively validated scoring system, members of the Infectious Diseases Society of America/Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America expert committee will define severe CDI as present in any patient with a leukocyte count > or =15,000 cells/mm(3) or a creatinine level increased by > or =50% from baseline. For patients with mild-to-moderate CDI (defined by a leukocyte count <15000 cells/mm(3) and a creatinine level <1.5 times the baseline value), there is no evidence that treatment with vancomycin is superior to treatment with metronidazole (even for intermediate outcomes), and metronidazole therapy should be preferred. For patients with severe CDI who are not infected with BI/NAP1/027, there is reasonable evidence that the better pharmacokinetics of vancomycin translate into a lower probability of complications. For those patients who are infected with BI/NAP1/027, the superiority of vancomycin therapy remains to be proven. In practice, because it is not yet possible to rapidly type the strains, all patients with severe CDI should be treated with vancomycin. Future trials should use complicated CDI and recurrences as their primary outcomes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.388
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

Citations73
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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