Bibliographic record
Abstract
In light of subsequent data regarding clindamycin use as a risk factor for disease caused by clindamycin-resistant strains of Clostridium difficile, it is also tempting to speculate that an outbreak was caused by clindamycin-resistant C. difficile. Overall, 21% of the 308 C. difficile isolates were resistant to clindamycin, yet by serogrouping, the researchers were able to show that clindamycin resistance was concentrated in specific groups of strains of C. difficile. Studies from the United States, Canada, and Europe confirm the widespread presence of clindamycin resistance among C. difficile isolates during the first 10 years following the discovery that the organism was the cause of pseudomembranous colitis (PMC). The accepted breakpoint for clindamycin resistance based on drug concentrations in serum is an MIC of >4 μg/ml. The current best explanation of this is that the disruption of normal intestinal flora is likely the determining antibiotic event that makes patients susceptible to infection with C. difficile. The Belgium study was important in showing not only the relationship of clindamycin use and clindamycin resistance but also the possible clonal nature of clindamycin-resistant strains. Although the researchers did not correlate risk of infection with the strain with the use of clindamycin, they did place clindamycin use under restriction and observed in retrospect an associated decline in C. difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) rates, suggesting that clindamycin resistance and clindamycin use were important risk factors in the outbreak.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".