Derivation and internal validation of the multivariate toxigenic <i>C. difficile</i> diarrhea model and risk score for emergency room and hospitalized patients with diarrhea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Many factors have been associated with the risk of toxigenic C. difficile diarrhea (TCdD). This study derived and internally validated a multivariate model for estimating the risk of TCdD in patients with diarrhea using readily available clinical factors. Methods: A random sample of 3,050 symptomatic emergency department or hospitalized patients undergoing testing for toxigenic C. difficile at a single teaching hospital between 2014 and 2018 was created. Unformed stool samples positive for both glutamate dehydrogenase antigen by enzyme immunoassay and tcdB gene by polymerase chain reaction were classified as TCdD positive. The TCdD Model was created using logistic regression and was modified to the TCdD Risk Score to facilitate its use. Results: 8.1% of patients were TCdD positive. TCdD risk increased with abdominal pain (adjusted odds ratio 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0–1.8), previous C. difficile diarrhea (2.5, 1.1–6.1), and prior antibiotic exposure, especially when sampled in the emergency department (4.2, 2.5–7.0) versus the hospital (1.7, 1.3–2.3). TCdD risk also increased when testing occurred earlier during the hospitalization encounter, when age and white cell count increased concurrently, and with decreased eosinophil count. In internal validation, the TCdD Model had moderate discrimination (optimism-corrected C-statistic 0.65, 0.62–0.68) and good calibration (optimism-corrected Integrated Calibration Index [ICI] 0.017, 0.001–0.022). Performance decreased slightly for the TCdD Risk Score (C-statistic 0.63, 0.62–0.63; ICI 0.038, 0.004–0.038). Conclusions: TCdD risk can be predicted using readily available clinical risk factors with modest accuracy.
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 | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".