Clostridioides difficile Infection in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Systematic Review of Risk Factors and Approach in Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
infection (CDI) is one of the most common diseases associated with medical care, having a more significant impact on patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The latest studies have proposed a change in management for CDI in IBD patients. This study aims to perform a systematic review that explores the risk factors associated with the infection and the most optimal approach in management. Multiple databases were used for this research, including PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library. Studies published in the last five years in the English language were selected based on pre-established criteria. The quality assessment used was the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria in this systematic review, including literature reviews, a case and control study, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Based on the findings in this research, we conclude that the treatment for an initial episode of CDI in IBD patients is the use of antibiotics, vancomycin, or fidaxomicin. For episodes of recurrent CDI (rCDI), fetal microbiota transplantation should be considered. The most common risk factors associated are gut microbiota disturbances, the use of antibiotics, and hospitalization. Due to a wide range of risk factors mentioned in some studies but disregarded in others, further research is needed to determine the most prevalent risk factors.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".