Hospitalization With <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Several studies have demonstrated higher rates of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We conducted a population-based study comparing the risk of hospitalization with CDI in children with and without IBD. METHODS: Using health administrative data and validated algorithms, we identified all children (<16 years) diagnosed with IBD in 5 Canadian provinces, then age and sex matched to 5 children without IBD. Province-specific 5-year incidence rates of hospitalization with CDI were pooled and generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate the crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) comparing (1) children with and without IBD and (2) children with Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis. Hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, rural/urban household, and income were pooled using fixed-effects models. RESULTS: The incidence rate of CDI identified during hospitalization was 49.06 [95% confidence interval (CI), 39.40-61.08] per 10,000 person-years (PY) in 3593 children with IBD compared to 0.39 (95% CI, 0.13-1.21) per 10,000 PY in 16,284 children without IBD (crude IRR, 133.4, 95% CI, 42.1-422.7; adjusted HR, 68.2, 95% CI, 24.4-190.4). CDI was identified less often in children with Crohn disease than ulcerative colitis (crude IRR, 0.51, 95% CI, 0.32-0.82; adjusted HR, 0.69, 95% CI, 0.46-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: Children with IBD have a markedly higher incidence of CDI identified during a hospitalization relative to children without IBD. Consequently, symptomatic children with IBD who are hospitalized should be screened for CDI.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".