The Impact of Clostridium difficile Infection on Mortality in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has been associated with an increased mortality risk among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in multiple observational studies. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to help clearly define the magnitude of risk in IBD patients with and without CDI, and to assess the risk in individual IBD subtypes. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic databases was conducted for observational studies reporting the risk of mortality in IBD, stratified by the presence of CDI. Weighted summary estimates were calculated using generalized inverse variance with random-effects model. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Ten observational studies were identified (8 from North America and 2 from Europe) and included 40,700 IBD patients with CDI and 1,320,764 IBD controls without CDI. Overall, IBD patients with CDI had a higher risk of mortality compared with IBD patients without CDI [odds ratios (OR), 4.39; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.56-5.42; I=93%]. The results were stable in high-quality studies and in hospitalized patients. When patients were stratified by IBD type, CDI was associated with increased mortality in patients with ulcerative colitis (7 studies) (OR, 4.39; 95% CI, 3.44-5.61; I), but not in patients with Crohn's disease (4 studies) (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 0.84-5.77; I). Individual studies were limited by an inability to control for IBD disease activity and therapeutic interventions. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of 10 observational studies with at least moderate quality, CDI seems to increase mortality risk in IBD, particularly in ulcerative colitis. These findings are a cause for concern and suggest that CDI should be managed aggressively in patients with IBD.
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 | 0.014 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".