Guideline for the Management of <i>Clostridium Difficile</i> Infection in Children and Adolescents With Cancer and Pediatric Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: infection (CDI) in children and adolescents with cancer and pediatric hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) patients. METHODS: An international multidisciplinary panel of experts in pediatric oncology and infectious diseases with patient advocate representation was convened. We performed systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials for the prevention or treatment of CDI in any population and considered the directness of the evidence to children with cancer and pediatric HSCT patients. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to generate recommendations. RESULTS: The panel made strong recommendations to administer either oral metronidazole or oral vancomycin for the initial treatment of nonsevere CDI and oral vancomycin for the initial treatment of severe CDI. Fidaxomicin may be considered in the setting of recurrent CDI. The panel suggested that probiotics not be routinely used for the prevention of CDI, and that monoclonal antibodies and probiotics not be routinely used for the treatment of CDI. A strong recommendation to not use fecal microbiota transplantation was made in this population. We identified key knowledge gaps and suggested directions for future research. CONCLUSION: We present a guideline for the prevention and treatment of CDI in children and adolescents with cancer and pediatric HSCT patients. Future research should include randomized controlled trials that involve children with cancer and pediatric HSCT patients to improve the management of CDI in this population.
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 | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".