MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

C. difficile-Associated Risk of Death Score (CARDS): A Novel Risk Score to Predict Mortality Among Hospitalized Patients With C. difficile Infection: ACG Fellow Award

2014· article· en· W2977243682 on OpenAlexaff
Zain Kassam, Camila Cribb Fabersunne, Mark Smith, Gilaad G. Kaplan, Geoffrey C. Nguyen, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionOdds ratioMultivariate analysisInternal medicineDiseaseDiabetes mellitusMultivariate statisticsFramingham Risk ScoreEmergency medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction:C. difficile infection (CDI) is the leading health care-associated infection in the United States with significant associated mortality. Existing treatments for CDI vary in their absolute and relative efficacy based on severity of underlying disease; yet there are few objectively derived severity scores. Furthermore, development of an accurate scoring system to define severity across large administrative databases additionally allows for important comparisons in outcomes across populations and over time. Our aim was to develop a novel CDI risk score to predict mortality for clinicians and epidemiologists entitled: C. difficile associated risk of death score (CARDS). Methods: We obtained data from the 2011 nationwide inpatient sample (NIS) database, the largest source of all-payer hospital discharge information in the United States capturing data from 1,049 hospitals within 46 states. Standard international classification of disease, 9th Edition (ICD-9) was used to identify all patients with CDI (008.45). Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to identify independent predictors of mortality in patients with CDI. A risk score was calculated by assigning a numeric weight to each parameter based on their odds ratio (OR). Predictive properties of model discrimination were assessed using the c-statistic and CARDS compared to standard models. Results: We identified 343,982 hospitalizations with an associated diagnosis of CDI, 8% of whom died in the hospital. The 8 CARDS predictors identified on multivariate analysis were age, cardiopulmonary disease, malignancy, diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, acute renal failure, liver disease, and intensive care admission (ICU) admission, with weights ranging from -1 (for diabetes) to 5 (for ICU admission). The overall risk score in the cohort ranged from 0 to 18. Mortality increased significantly as CARDS increased. CDI-associated mortality was 1% with CARDS=0; 4% with CARDS=5; 20% with CARDS=10; 47% with CARDS=15 and 100% with CARDS=18. The predictive test characteristic for CARDS was robust (c-statistic=0.77). CARDS performed better than age, sex, and Charlson co-morbidity index model (c-statistic=0.64) or age, sex, Charlson co-morbidity index, and ICU admission model (c-statistic= 0.73) in predicting CDI-associated mortality in hospitalized patients. Conclusion: CARDS is a promising risk score to predict mortality among hospitalized with CDI. It may be useful to stratify CDI severity and compare outcomes over time and across settings using administrative data. Disclosure - Dr. Ananthakrishnan - Scientific advisory board of Cubist Pharmaceuticals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research→French-language works237,207→