MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175883958 · doi:10.1093/cid/ciab549

Clinical Practice Guideline by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA): 2021 Focused Update Guidelines on Management of <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> Infection in Adults

2021· article· en· W3175883958 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart Johnson, Valéry Lavergne, Andrew M Skinner, Anne J Gonzales-Luna, Kevin W. Garey, Ciarán P. Kelly, Mark H. Wilcox

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalVancouver General Hospital
FundersAllerganCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institutes of HealthAstellas PharmaNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesPfizerEuropean CommissionSociety for Healthcare Epidemiology of AmericaInfectious Diseases Society of AmericaMedical Research CouncilSanofi
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineClostridioidesEpidemiologyHealth careInfection controlIntensive care medicineFamily medicineEnvironmental healthPathologyEconomic growthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This clinical practice guideline is a focused update on management of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in adults specifically addressing the use of fidaxomicin and bezlotoxumab for the treatment of CDI. This guideline was developed by a multidisciplinary panel representing the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). This guideline is intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for adults with CDI, including specialists in infectious diseases, gastroenterologists, hospitalists, pharmacists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for these patients. The panel's recommendations for the management CDI are based upon evidence derived from topic-specific systematic literature reviews. Summarized below are the recommendations for the management of CDI in adults. The panel followed a systematic process which included a standardized methodology for rating the certainty of the evidence and strength of recommendation using the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). A detailed description of background, methods, evidence summary and rationale that support each recommendation, and knowledge gaps can be found online in the full text.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0110.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.017

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations637
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207