MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396514890 · doi:10.1128/spectrum.00225-24

Comparison of rectal swabs and fecal samples for the detection of <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> infections with a new in-house PCR assay

2024· article· en· W4396514890 on OpenAlexafffund
Ann Huletsky, Vivian G. Loo, Yves Longtin, Jean Longtin, Sylvie Trottier, Cécile Tremblay, Rodica Gilca, Christian Lavallée, Éliel Brochu, Ève Bérubé, Martine Bastien, Marthe Bernier, Martin Gagnon, Johanne Frenette, Julie Bestman‐Smith, Louise Deschênes, Michel G. Bergeron

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology Spectrum · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Est-de-l'Île-de-MontréalInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalJewish General HospitalUniversité LavalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
FundersGenePOC
KeywordsFecesClostridioidesMedicineReal-time polymerase chain reactionPositive predicative valuePredictive valueInternal medicineRectumGastroenterologyMicrobiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The detection of Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) relies on testing the stool of patients by toxin antigen detection or PCR methods. Although PCR and antigenic methods have significantly reduced the time to results, delays in stool collection can significantly add to the turnaround time. The use of rectal swabs to detect C. difficile could considerably reduce the time to diagnosis of CDI. We developed a new rapid PCR assay for the detection of C. difficile and evaluated this PCR assay on both stool and rectal swab specimens. We recruited a total of 623 patients suspected of C. difficile infection. Stool samples and rectal swabs were collected from each patient and tested by our PCR assay. Stool samples were also tested by the cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) as a reference. The PCR assay detected C. difficile in 60 stool specimens and 61 rectal swabs for the 64 patients whose stool samples were positive for C. difficile by CCNA. The PCR assay detected an additional 35 and 36 stool and rectal swab specimens positive for C. difficile , respectively, for sensitivity with stools and rectal swabs of 93.8% and 95.3%, specificity of 93.7% and 93.6%, positive predictive values of 63.2% and 62.9%, and negative predictive values of 99.2% and 99.4%. Detection of C. difficile using PCR on stools or rectal swabs yielded reliable and similar results. The use of PCR tests on rectal swabs could reduce turnaround time for CDI detection, thus improving CDI management and control of C. difficile transmission. IMPORTANCE Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is the leading cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea, resulting in high morbidity, mortality, and economic burden. In clinical laboratories, CDI testing is currently performed on stool samples collected from patients with diarrhea. However, the diagnosis of CDI can be delayed by the time required to collect stool samples. Barriers to sample collection could be overcome by using a rectal swab instead of a stool sample. Our study showed that CDI can be identified rapidly and reliably by a new PCR assay developed in our laboratory on both stool and rectal swab specimens. The use of PCR tests on rectal swabs could reduce the time for the detection of CDI and improve the management of this infection. It should also provide a useful alternative for infection-control practitioners to better control the spread of C. difficile .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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