Fecal microbiota composition is a better predictor of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection than clinical factors in a prospective, multicentre cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is the most common cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. Fidaxomicin and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) are effective, but expensive therapies to treat recurrent CDI (reCDI). Our objective was to develop a prediction model for reCDI based on the gut microbiota composition and clinical characteristics, to identify patients who could benefit from early treatment with fidaxomicin or FMT. METHODS: Multicentre, prospective, observational study in adult patients diagnosed with a primary episode of CDI. Fecal samples and clinical data were collected prior to, and after 5 days of CDI treatment. Follow-up duration was 8 weeks. Microbiota composition was analysed by IS-pro, a bacterial profiling technique based on phylum- and species-specific differences in the 16-23 S interspace regions of ribosomal DNA. Bayesian additive regression trees (BART) and adaptive group-regularized logistic ridge regression (AGRR) were used to construct prediction models for reCDI. RESULTS: 209 patients were included, of which 25% developed reCDI. Variables related to microbiota composition provided better prediction of reCDI and were preferentially selected over clinical factors in joint prediction models. Bacteroidetes abundance and diversity after start of CDI treatment, and the increase in Proteobacteria diversity relative to baseline, were the most robust predictors of reCDI. The sensitivity and specificity of a BART model including these factors were 95% and 78%, but these dropped to 67% and 62% in out-of-sample prediction. CONCLUSION: Early microbiota response to CDI treatment is a better predictor of reCDI than clinical prognostic factors, but not yet sufficient enough to predict reCDI in daily practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".