Proton Pump Inhibitors and Hospitalization for Clostridium Difficile--Associated Disease: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have examined the association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and the risk of Clostridium difficile-associated disease (CDAD), with conflicting results. Whether outpatient PPI use influences the risk of hospital admission for CDAD among older patients who have recently been treated with antibiotics is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, nested case-control study of linked health care databases in Ontario, Canada, from 1 April 2002 through 31 March 2005. We identified patients aged > or = 66 years who were hospitalized for CDAD within 60 days of receiving outpatient antibiotic therapy. Each case patient with CDAD was matched with 10 control subjects on the basis of age, sex, and details of antibiotic use (antibiotic class, timing, and number of antibiotics used). PPI use by case patients and control subjects was categorized as current (within 90 days), recent (91-180 days), or remote (181-365 days). We used conditional logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio for the association between outpatient PPI use and risk of hospitalization for CDAD. RESULTS: We identified 1389 case patients and 12,303 matched control subjects. Case patients were no more likely than control subjects to have received a PPI in the preceding 90 days (adjusted odds ratio, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-1.1). Similarly, we found no association between hospitalization for CDAD and more remote use of PPIs. CONCLUSIONS: Among community-dwelling older patients, PPI use is not a risk factor for hospitalization with CDAD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".