MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clostridioides difficile PCR Tcdb Cycle Threshold predicts toxin EIA positivity but not severity of infection

2023· article· en· W4382933176 on OpenAlexafffund
Regan Mah, Kerstin Locher, Theodore S. Steiner, Aleksandra Stefanovic

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaerobe · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalProvidence Health CareUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsClostridioidesMedicineClostridium difficile toxin AInternal medicineClostridium difficile toxin BToxinClostridium difficilePolymerase chain reactionAntibioticsMicrobiologyBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile Infection (CDI) entails compatible clinical presentation and laboratory findings. We evaluated real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) cycle threshold (C T ) as a predictor for disease severity and TcdB enzyme immunoassay (EIA) results. Methods Inpatients or emergency department patients who tested positive for tcdB gene by PCR were evaluated. Patients’ stools underwent testing for GDH and TcdA/B by EIA. Medical health records were reviewed for demographic, clinical presentation, laboratory, treatment and outcome data. Severity of CDI was calculated using various severity score indexes. Results The median C T of cases was 32.05 ± 5.45. The optimal cut-off for predicting toxin EIA positivity and severe CDI based on chart review was 32.6 and 29.8, respectively, with the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.74 and 0.60 respectively. Conclusion C T value was an acceptable predictor for EIA toxin but less so for clinical severity. Our study potentially supports a diagnostic algorithm including C T value to reduce the number of EIA toxin assays performed.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaerobeSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207