Household Transmission of<i>Clostridium difficile</i>to Family Members and Domestic Pets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the risk of Clostridium difficile transmission from index cases with C. difficile infection (CDI) to their household contacts and domestic pets. DESIGN A prospective study from April 2011 to June 2013. SETTING Patients with CDI from Canadian tertiary care centers. PARTICIPANTS Patients with CDI, their household human contacts, and pets. METHODS Epidemiologic information and stool or rectal swabs were collected from participants at enrollment and monthly for up to 4 months. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) was performed on C. difficile isolates. Probable transmission was defined as the conversion of a C. difficile culture-negative contact to C. difficile culture-positive contact with a PFGE pattern indistinguishable or closely related to the index case. Possible transmission was defined as a contact with a positive C. difficile culture at baseline with a strain indistinguishable or closely related to the index case. RESULTS A total of 51 patients with CDI participated in this study; 67 human contacts and 15 pet contacts were included. Overall, 9 human contacts (13.4%) were C. difficile culture positive; 1 contact (1.5%) developed CDI; and 8 contacts were asymptomatic. Of 67 human contacts, probable transmission occurred in 1 human contact (1.5%) and possible transmission occurred in 5 human contacts (7.5%). Of 15 pet contacts, probable transmission occurred in 3 (20%) and possible transmission occurred in 1 (6.7%). CONCLUSIONS There was a high proportion of C. difficile culture positivity at 13.4% among human contacts and asymptomatic carriage of domestic pets reached 26.7%. These results suggest that household transmission of C. difficile may be a source of community-associated cases. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1-7.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".