Quality of life among older patients receiving faecal microbiota transplant for <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has mainly been studied in quantitative research to investigate effect rates. However, there is a lack of qualitative studies to explore patient perspectives. AIM: infection (CDI) at least 1 week after receiving FMT. METHOD: A qualitative study examining quality of life for patients treated with FMT. FINDINGS: Patients with a permanent or transient treatment effect experienced an increase in quality of life in the physical, psychological and social domains. However, patients who did not respond to the treatment experienced negative impacts on their psychological, physical, and social domains. Although patients found the content unappealing, none had reservations about receiving the treatment. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the importance of considering the psychological, social and physical wellbeing of patients when assessing the efficacy of FMT as a treatment option for patients with CDI. It further emphasises the importance of health professionals identifying patients' individual ways of handling the disease and everyday life to improve their quality of life.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".