MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401340321 · doi:10.5858/arpa.2023-0434-cp

High Prevalence of Multistep Algorithms in Diagnostic <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> Laboratory Testing

2024· article· en· W4401340321 on OpenAlexaff
Kaede V. Sullivan, Rhona J. Souers, Erica Hillesland, Dylan R. Pillai, Daniel D. Rhoads, Robin Rolf, Patricia J. Simner, Christina Wojewoda, Carol A. Rauch

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClostridioidesMedicineNucleic Acid Amplification TestsImmunoassayAlgorithmContext (archaeology)Diagnostic testClinical microbiologyInternal medicinePediatricsGynecologyMicrobiologyImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT.—: Laboratory testing practices for diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) have evolved in response to published guidelines, availability of highly sensitive nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), perceived problems with the specificity of NAATs, and CDI reporting requirements. OBJECTIVE.—: To assess the current state of laboratory practice for diagnostic CDI testing. DESIGN.—: An optional 8-item supplemental questionnaire was distributed in December 2019 to the 1374 laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists C difficile Detection (CDF) proficiency testing program challenge CDF-C. RESULTS.—: Of 1374 CDF-C participants, 1160 (84.4%) responded, predominantly representing laboratories based in the United States (1077 of 1160; 92.8%). The majority reported using a multistep testing algorithm (684 of 1159; 59.0%). Initial testing with a glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin A/B combination test followed by NAAT for discrepant results was the most common testing method (360 of 1146; 31.4%). NAAT alone (299 of 1146; 26.1%) was next, then NAAT followed by an assay that included toxin A/B enzyme immunoassay if NAAT is positive (258 of 1146; 22.5%). Only 5.4% (62 of 1146) reported using toxin A/B immunoassay alone. Most respondents (1093 of 1131; 96.6%) reported rejecting CDI tests on formed stool, but rejection of CDI testing in pediatric patients was uncommon (211 of 1131; 18.7%). Rejection of CDI testing in patients using laxatives was reported more often by US-based respondents (379 of 1054 [36.0%] versus 9 of 77 [11.7%], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS.—: Multistep algorithms for CDI diagnosis are widely used in line with published recommendations. Most respondents reported rejection of formed stool for CDI testing, but few reported rejection of testing in infants and patients taking laxatives, suggesting these may be areas of opportunity for laboratories to pursue in improving CDI testing practices.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory MedicineSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207