Clostridium difficile Infection and Risk of Colectomy in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a common complication of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) and is associated with worse outcome. Variable rates of colectomy have been reported among IBD complicated by CDI. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to assess the association between CDI and colectomy among patients with IBD. METHODS: The literature was systematically searched using PubMed from inception through April 2016. Studies were limited to cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies reporting colectomy risk stratified by CDI in patients with IBD. We estimated summary ORs and 95% CIs using the quality-effects model. Study quality was assessed using an adaptation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Six studies were included in the meta-analysis, comprising 8 data sets. Results from meta-analysis showed that CDI was a significant risk factor for colectomy among patients with IBD, mainly patients with ulcerative colitis, almost doubling the odds (OR 1.90; 95% CI, 1.23-2.93). There was significant heterogeneity across studies (Q = 22.02, P < 0.001; I = 68%). Funnel plots were grossly asymmetrical. Results of sensitivity analysis restricting studies to those reporting ulcerative colitis only and studies using laboratory tests to confirm CDI were consistent with the result from the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: CDI is a significant risk factor for colectomy in patients with IBD. Further research is needed to investigate the attributable risks of surgery due to CDI among patients with Crohn's 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 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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".