MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750669675 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1003

Derivation and Validation of a Clinical Prediction Rule for Complications of Clostridium difficile Infection Using a Multicenter Prospective Cohort

2017· article· en· W2750669675 on OpenAlexaffabout
Claire Nour Abou Chakra, Allison McGeer, Annie‐Claude Labbé, Andrew E. Simor, Wayne L. Gold, Matthew Muller, Jeff Powis, Kevin Katz, Suzanne M. Cadarette, Julian R. Garneau, Louis Valiquette

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalHealth Sciences CentreCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeNorth York General HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Est-de-l'Île-de-MontréalToronto East General HospitalToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionClostridium difficileReceiver operating characteristicInternal medicineClinical prediction ruleToxic megacolonColectomyPerforationProspective cohort studyUlcerative colitisDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Clostridium difficileinfection (CDI) outbreaks were associated with increase in unfavorable outcomes. Identifying and predicting risk of developing complications (cCDI) early in the course of illness could improve clinical decision-making. We developed and validated a prediction rule for cCDI. Methods Adult inpatients with confirmed CDI in 10 Canadian hospitals were enrolled and followed for 90 days. Data within 48h of CDI diagnosis were collected: demographics, underlying illnesses, past medical and drug history, clinical signs, blood tests, and strain ribotype. cCDI was defined as one or more of: colonic perforation, toxic megacolon, colectomy, need of vasopressors, ICU admission due to CDI, or if CDI contributed to 30-day death. Predictors’ selection was supported by experts’ opinion suggesting 17 clinical criteria. Cross-validation technique was used (2:1 ratio) and multivariable logistic regression for predictive modeling in the derivation subset. The optimal model was assessed by area under ROC curve (AUC) and prediction error (PE). A predictive score was built by assigning points proportional to adjusted risk estimates. Results Among 1380 patients enrolled, 1050 were used for predictive modeling (median age 70 years and one-third infected by ribotype 027 strains). Cases were split into training (n = 700) and validation sets (n = 350). A cCDI occured in 8% and 6.6% respectively. The optimal model with a PE of 5% and an AUC of 0.84 in the validation set included WCC (< 4, 12–19.9, or ≥20 × 109/L), BUN≥11 mmol/L, serum albumin <25 g/L, heart rate > 90/minute, and respiratory rate >20/minute. A predictive score of min 0 and max 13 points was derived. A score ≥7 points was associated with 70% cases of cCDI, showed 68% sensitivity (95% CI, 55–80) in the derivation set and 70% (51–88) in the validation set, a specificity of 73% (69–76) and 76% (72–81) respectively, 17% PPV (9–25), and 97% NPV (95–99) in both sets. Conclusion Using a large multicenter prospective cohort and robust modeling approach, we derived a predictive score that included easily available measures at the bedside. The score showed acceptable performance. Further validation is needed on cohorts with different characterstics (non-outbreak setting, higher rate of cCDI). Other approaches such as combination of biomarkers could be more predictive of cCDI. Disclosures J. Powis, Merck: Grant Investigator, Research grant; GSK: Grant Investigator, Research grant; Roche: Grant Investigator, Research grant; Synthetic Biologicals: Investigator, Research grant

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207