MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802837662 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20170109

Regional variability in fecal microbiota transplantation practices: a survey of the Southern Ontario Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Movement

2018· article· en· W2802837662 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Susy Hota, Salman Surangiwala, Aimee S. Paterson, Bryan Coburn, Susan M. Poutanen

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClostridium difficileFecal bacteriotherapyMedicineTransplantationInfection controlEnemaC difficileSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background:</h3> There is growing evidence that fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an effective treatment for recurrent <i>Clostridium difficile</i> infection, but little guidance exists for implementation of FMT programs. The objective of this study is to describe the program characteristics and protocols of 9 planned or operating FMT programs in the Southern Ontario Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (SOFT) Movement, to help guide future FMT program implementation. <h3>Methods:</h3> A 59-item survey was administered electronically to clinical leads of the SOFT Movement on June 2, 2016. The survey evaluated 7 domains: FMT program characteristics, FMT recipients, donor screening/selection, transplant manufacturing, FMT administration, good manufacturing procedures/biosafety procedures and infection-control procedures. We used descriptive statistics to analyze quantitative data. <h3>Results:</h3> All 9 programs responded to the survey: 6 were active, 1 had FMT standard operating procedures developed but did not have clinical experience, and 2 were in the process of forming FMT programs. All 6 active programs performed FMT in adult patients with <i>C. difficile</i> infection. About 1300 FMT procedures were performed between 2003 and 2016. Five of the 6 operating programs administered the preparation via enema. Programs were driven primarily by physicians. All programs used universal FMT donors and followed Health Canada’s screening guidelines, with considerable variability in screening frequency (every 3–6 mo) and modality. Locations for transplant preparation and manufacturing protocols varied across programs. Stool mass for FMT ranged from 20 g to 150 g, and transplant volume ranged from 25 mL to 300 mL. <h3>Interpretation:</h3> The experience of this high-volume regional FMT network highlights current challenges in FMT program development, including a high reliance on physicians and the costly nature of donor screening. Standardization and optimization through development of regional centres of excellence for FMT donor recruitment and administration should be explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.826

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207