Examining the association between hospital-onset <i>Clostridium difficile</i> infection and multiple-bed room exposure: a case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether assignment to a multiple-bed room increased the risk of hospital-onset C. difficile diarrhea (HO-CDI). DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center.PopulationAdult general medical and surgical inpatients. METHODS: Consecutive cases of HO-CDI were identified between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015. To investigate the effect of multiple-bed room exposure both at admission and at the time of symptom onset, 2 sets of controls were selected from the general medical/surgical inpatient population using incidence density sampling. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the relationship between room assignment (single bed vs multiple beds) and the development of HO-CDI. RESULTS: In total, 187 cases were identified and matched with 512 and 515 controls for the admission and at-diagnosis analyses, respectively. The adjusted rate ratio (RR) associated with the development HO-CDI associated with multiple-bed room exposure during the 7 and 14 days immediately prior to HO-CDI diagnosis were 1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.25; P=.31) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-1.18; P=.12), respectively. Furthermore, no significant association was detected in the analysis of the first 7 and 14 days after case admission or among patients with Charlson comorbidity scores ≥4 in either period. CONCLUSION: Assignment of patients to multiple-bed rooms on general medical and surgical wards was not associated with an increased risk in the development of HO-CDI. Future investigation should be performed with larger cohorts in multiple sites to more definitively address the question because this issue could have implications for patient room assignment and hospital design.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".