Lack of Association Between the Clinical Outcome of <i>Clostridium difficile</i> Infection and Current Steroids Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: infection (CDI) in patients on systemic steroids for various indications to patients not on steroids in term of disease severity, and associated morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed records of all patients with CDI at our hospital from January 2011 to December 2016. Patients were evaluated for baseline characteristics, comorbidities, medications, disease severity, disease-related length of stay (LOS) from the diagnosis of CDI to discharge, need for surgical intervention, and disease-related mortality. Based on systemic steroids use, patients who were using steroids for different indications constituted the study population, and those with no steroids use were clustered as a control group. RESULTS: Of the 258 patients included, males were 127 (49%). Severe and severe-complicated CDI developed in 21/63 (33.3%) and 1/63 (1.6%) of patients on steroids (average daily dose of 20 mg), and in 73/195 (37.4%) and 5/195 (2.6%) of patients with no steroids use (P = 0.56 and P = 0.66, respectively). Surgical intervention was not required in the steroids group and 5/195 (2.7%) of patients not on steroids underwent bowel surgeries (P = 0.38). Mean LOS (days) was 11.6 ± 1.5 in the steroids group and 10.4 ± 0.7 in the no-steroids group (P = 0.4). CDI-related mortality occurred in 9/63(14.3%) of patients on steroids, and in 15/195 (7.7%) of patients not on steroids (P = 0.12; odds ratio (OR): 2; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8 - 4.8). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in the severity of CDI, need for surgical interventions, disease-related LOS and mortality in systemic steroids users compared to patients not on steroids.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".