MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137601602 · doi:10.1177/104063870001200510

Isolation of Environmental <i>Clostridium Difficile</i> from a Veterinary Teaching Hospital

2000· article· en· W2137601602 on OpenAlexaff
J. Scott Weese, H. R. Staempfli, John F. Prescott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClostridium difficileIsolation (microbiology)Veterinary medicineDiarrheaMicrobiologyMedicineFecesOrganismClostridium perfringensBiologyAntibioticsBacteriaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An environmental survey of a veterinary teaching hospital for the presence of Clostridium difficile was performed using contact plates and cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose with 0.1% sodium taurocholate agar. Clostridium difficile was isolated from 24 of 381 sites (6.3%). Growth was obtained from 4.5% (9/202) of sites sampled in the Large Animal Clinic, from 8.1% (13/160) of sites within the Small Animal Clinic, and from 20% (2/10) of sites sampled elsewhere. Fourteen of 21 strains tested produced toxins in vitro. A geographic association was found with areas in the large animal clinic where nosocomial C. difficile diarrhea in horses had previously been diagnosed. Several other sites with a potential for nosocomial transmission of the organism were identified. Areas from which C. difficile was isolated tended to be areas with high animal traffic, with increased chance of fecal contamination, and with rough, difficult to clean surfaces. This study documents the prevalence of this organism in the environment and its potential role in nosocomial disease.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations61
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic InvestigationSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207