Importance of underlying mechanisms for interpreting relative risk of Clostridioides difficile infection among antibiotic-exposed patients in healthcare facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a significant public health threat, associated with antibiotic-induced disruption of the normally protective gastrointestinal microbiota. CDI is thought to occur in two stages: acquisition of asymptomatic colonization from ingesting C. difficile bacteria followed by progression to symptomatic CDI caused by toxins produced during C. difficile overgrowth. The degree to which disruptive antibiotic exposure increases susceptibility at each stage is uncertain, which might contribute to divergent published projections of the impact of hospital antibiotic stewardship interventions on CDI. Here, we model C. difficile transmission and CDI among hospital inpatients, including exposure to high-CDI-risk antibiotics and their effects on each stage of CDI epidemiology. We derive the mathematical relationship, using a deterministic model, between those parameters and observed equilibrium levels of colonization, CDI, and risk ratio of CDI among certain antibiotic-exposed patients relative to patients with no recent antibiotic exposure. We then quantify the sensitivity of projected antibiotic stewardship intervention impacts to alternate assumptions. We find that two key parameters, the antibiotic effects on susceptibility to colonization and to CDI progression, are not identifiable given the data frequently available. Furthermore, the effects of antibiotic stewardship interventions are sensitive to their assumed values. Thus, discrepancies between different projections of antibiotic stewardship interventions may be largely due to model assumptions. Data supporting improved quantification of mechanistic antibiotic effects on CDI epidemiology are needed to understand stewardship effects better.
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 | 0.016 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".