Low Awareness but Positive Attitudes Toward Fecal Transplantation in Ontario Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite mounting evidence supporting fecal transplantation (FT) as a treatment for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), adoption into clinical practice has been slow. OBJECTIVE: To determine the health literacy and attitudes of academic physicians in Toronto and infectious disease physicians in Ontario toward FT as a treatment for recurrent CDI, and to determine whether these are significant barriers to adoption. METHODS: Surveys were distributed to 253 general internists, infectious diseases specialists, gastroenterologists and family physicians. RESULTS: The response rate was 15%. More than 60% of physicians described themselves as being 'not at all' or 'somewhat' familiar with FT. Of the 76% of physicians who had never referred a patient for FT, the most common reason (50%) was lack of awareness of where to access the treatment. The 'ick factor' accounted for only 13% of reasons for not referring. No respondent believed that the procedure was too risky to consider. CONCLUSION: Despite general poor health literacy on FT, most physicians sampled share similar positive attitudes toward the treatment.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".