MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391873319 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwad061.020

A20 FECAL MICROBIOTA TRANSPLANTATION FORMULATIONS DO NOT AFFECT BACTERIAL VIABILITY OR TREATMENT OUTCOMES IN RECURRENT C. DIFFICILE INFECTION

2024· article· en· W4391873319 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lap Ki Chan, Chelsea McDougall, Karen Wong, David Kao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFecal bacteriotherapyC difficileFecesClostridium difficileTransplantationMedicineMicrobiologyAffect (linguistics)ImmunologyInternal medicineBiologyAntibioticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is the most effective therapy for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections (rCDI) with multiple RCTs showing efficacy of 80-90%. Frozen FMT is a commonly used formulation but requires storage at -80°C, creating barriers to storage and transportation. More recently, lyophilized FMT (LFMT) has shown promise as an alternative formulation, but little data exists as to how bacterial viability may be affected compared to fresh or frozen FMT by different storage temperatures and duration, and real-world outcome data is sparse. As such, this study aims to evaluate the viability and efficacy of LFMT compared to fresh and frozen FMT. Aims To 1) compare bacterial viability in 3 FMT formulations: fresh, frozen and lyophilization, at varying storage temperatures and duration, and 2) correlate different formulations with treatment outcomes. Methods We compared bacterial viability using flow cytometry to determine the proportion of live vs dead bacteria on fresh, frozen and lyophilized donor stool samples stored at different temperatures (-80°C for frozen, -80°C and +4°C for LFMT) and duration (up to 12 months). We then retrospectively examined treatment success rates in rCDI patients who received fresh, frozen or LFMT at the University of Alberta since inception of the FMT program in 2012. Success is defined as no recurrence of CDI 8 weeks after receiving a single FMT treatment. Results Compared to fresh FMT (20% live cells), the proportions of live cells in frozen formulation stored at -80°C and lyophilized formulations stored at -80°C and 4°C did not diminish over time for up to 12 months as shown in Figure 1. Between 2013-2022, outcome data was available in 503 rCDI patients with baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes shown in Table 1. A logistic regression analysis comparing LFMT to frozen FMT resulted in an odds ratio of 0.14, indicating that success rate of LFMT is 14% higher than frozen FMT. Conclusions Our study showed that LFMT stored at either -80°C or 4°C over 12 months did not result in diminished bacterial viability compared with frozen FMT. Furthermore, treatment success rate following LFMT in rCDI patients was not lower than with frozen FMT. This finding has implication for stool banks and FMT programs as LFMT can be stored and shipped at 4°C, facilitating use in outpatient settings. Table 1. Baseline characteristics and success rates of rCDI patients who received fresh, frozen or LFMT. Figure 1. Proportions of live cells in frozen FMT stored at -80°C, LFMT stored at -80°C and 4°C, at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Funding Agencies None

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research→French-language works237,207→