MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W41667184 · doi:10.1155/2012/213828

A Canadian Working Group Report on Fecal Microbial Therapy: Microbial Ecosystems Therapeutics

2012· review· en· W41667184 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Emma Allen‐Vercoe, Gregor Reid, Norman Viner, Gregory B. Gloor, Susy Hota, Peter Kim, Christine Lee, Kieran C. O’Doherty, Stephen Vanner, J. Scott Weese, Elaine O. Petrof

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityHealth CanadaUniversity of TorontoLawson Health Research InstituteWestern UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInfectious Diseases Society of America
KeywordsMedicineClostridium difficileFecal bacteriotherapyMicrobiologyBiologyAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A working group from across Canada comprised of clinician and basic scientists, epidemiologists, ethicists, Health Canada regulatory authorities and representatives of major funding agencies (Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada) met to review the current experience with fecal microbial therapy and to identify the key areas of study required to move this field forward. The report highlights the promise of fecal microbial therapy and related synthetic stool therapy (together called 'microbial ecosystems therapeutics') for the treatment of Clostridium difficile colitis and, possibly, other disorders. It identifies pressing clinical issues that need to be addressed as well as social, ethical and regulatory barriers to the use of these important therapies.

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)0.006
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations92
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207