Epidemiology of Clostridioides difficile in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clostridioides difficile (CD) is the most common healthcare-associated enteric infection. There is currently limited epidemiological evidence on CD incidence in South Africa. AIM: To estimate the burden of CD infection (CDI) in the South African public sector between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2017. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study utilizing secondary data was conducted to describe the epidemiology of CD in South Africa. We assessed the patient-level association between variables of interest, CD, and CD recurrence, by undertaking both univariate and multivariable analysis. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) were calculated utilizing multivariable Poisson regression. The incidence of CD, CD recurrence and CD testing was estimated by Poisson regression for various levels of care and provinces. RESULTS: A total of 14 023 samples were tested for CD during the study period. After applying exclusion criteria, we were left with a sample of 10 053 of which 1 860 (18.50%) tested CD positive. A positive and significant association between CDI and level of care is found, with patients treated in specialized tuberculosis (TB) hospitals having a five-fold increased adjusted incidence risk ratio (aIRR) for CDI (aIRR 4.96 CI95% 4.08-6.04,) compared to those managed in primary care. Patients receiving care at a secondary, tertiary, or central hospital had 35%, 66% and 41% increased adjusted incidence of CDI compared to those managed in primary care, respectively. National incidence of CDI is estimated at 53.89 cases per 100 000 hospitalizations (CI95% 51.58-56.29), the incidence of recurrence at 21.39 (CI95% 15.06-29.48) cases per 1 000 cases and a recurrence rate of 2.14% (CI95% 1.51-2.94). CONCLUSION: Compared to European countries, we found a comparable incidence of CD. However, our estimates are lower than those for the United States. Compared to high-income countries, this study found a comparatively lower CD recurrence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".