MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118657264 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.919

727. Outcomes of Antibiotic Use in Ischemic Colitis

2020· article· en· W3118657264 on OpenAlexaff
S. Poenaru, Adeel Sherazi, Kathryn N. Suh, Tommy Stuleanu

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal vascular conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntibioticsInternal medicineIschemic colitisBacteremiaAdverse effectRetrospective cohort studyDiarrheaCohortColitisDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Ischemic colitis (IC) is caused by inadequate blood flow to the colon. Most cases resolve with conservative management. Isolated right-sided colitis, peritonitis, shock, and vascular risk factors are predictors of severe disease which can be life-threatening and require surgery. Current guidelines recommend antibiotics for moderate/severe disease. This is based on results from animal models and concern for gut translocation of bacteria; there have been no comparative studies in humans. This study aims to evaluate whether there is benefit to antibiotic use in non-severe IC. Methods This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of adult patients hospitalized with IC from 2015-2018. Inclusion in the study required endoscopic, radiologic, operative, or histologic evidence of ischemic colitis. Patients were divided into mild/moderate and severe IC cohorts as per 2014 American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines. Primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS) and any adverse event, which is defined as a composite measure of pre-specified secondary outcomes including mortality, need for surgery, 1-year relapse, and bacteremia. Results Of 191 patients enrolled in the study, 130 had mild/moderate IC and 61 had severe IC. In mild/moderate IC groups there was no significant difference in total adverse events, although use of antibiotics was associated with a significant increase in LOS (Table 1). In the severe IC groups there was no significant difference in any primary outcomes, but mortality was lower at 3 and 6 months among patients who did not receive antibiotics. Table 1 Conclusion Antibiotics did not improve outcomes in mild/moderate IC, suggesting that conservative management may be sufficient in this group. Antibiotic use was associated with increased LOS in mild/moderate IC and with increased mortality in severe IC; it is not clear whether these associations are true antibiotic-mediated adverse effects or whether they simply reflect a tendency to use antibiotics more frequently in patients who are more unstable. Future prospective research is needed to establish clear guidelines for antibiotic indications, agent selection, and optimal treatment duration. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicAbdominal vascular conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207