The Value of Repeat <i>Clostridium difficile</i> Toxin Testing during and after an Outbreak of <i>C difficile</i>‐Associated Diarrhea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recent increase in Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) has led to questions about the reproducibility and sensitivity of C difficile toxin testing (CDTT). While there have been recommendations to repeat CDTT following a negative result, previous studies have failed to show a benefit. However, no studies were performed during an outbreak of CDAD. The value of repeat CDTT after an initial negative result in patients tested during and after an outbreak of CDAD is reported in the present study, as well as the reproducibility of CDTT when multiple samples are received and tested on the same day. METHODS: The results of CDTT, performed using a cell cytotoxicity assay between April 1, 2001, and March 31, 2008, were retrieved and searched for patients who had repeat samples tested after an initial negative result. The result and the number of days after a negative result were determined using the date of the most recent negative test. The cumulative positivity rate was calculated by adding all of the repeat positive test results for the days in question and dividing by the total number of tests performed during that time. RESULTS: A total of 8661 patients submitted 14,991 stool specimens for CDTT during the study period. There were 3095 samples that tested positive (20.6%) for the toxin. The results were divided into two time periods to reflect the CDAD outbreak, which began in April 2002: period 1 (outbreak) was from April 1, 2002, to March 31, 2006, and period 2 was from April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2008. The rate of positivity was 24.2% during period 1, and 11.6% during period 2 (P<0.001). Repeat CDTT was performed 619 times on samples received on the same day as the initial specimen, and only three (0.5%) were discordant. A total of 1630 samples were retested within one to seven days of a negative result, and 103 (6.3%) tested positive (7.8% period 1 and 2.9% period 2; P=0.002). The likelihood of a positive result on repeat testing in the first three days after a negative result was low (0.9%, 7% and 4%, respectively). The cumulative positivity for repeat testing performed in the first three days was 0.9%, 3.3% and 3.5%, respectively, and did not differ significantly at day 3 during the period of high CDTT positivity (P=0.110). CONCLUSIONS: The value of repeat CDTT, performed using a cell cytotoxicity assay, was low in the first three days after an initial negative result and was unchanged during a CDAD outbreak.
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 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".