MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407878641 · doi:10.1017/ash.2025.5

<i>Clostridioides difficile</i> surveillance: 9-year comparison between automated surveillance and conventional surveillance in acute care hospitals

2025· article· en· W4407878641 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Stanciu, Patrick Dolcé, Charles Frenette, Marie-Claude Roy, Lina Kouider, Yves Longtin

Bibliographic record

VenueAntimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University Health CentreUniversité LavalCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Bas-Saint-Laurent
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)ConcordanceMedical recordEmergency medicineElectronic surveillanceRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective: To develop and validate an automated surveillance system for healthcare-associated Clostridioides difficile infections (HA-CDI). Design: Multicenter cohort study. Setting: 16 acute care hospitals. Patients: Patients admitted to participating hospitals between 2013 and 2022. Methods: An automated surveillance system was developed with retrospective extraction from admission/discharge/transfer and laboratory databases and compared with conventional surveillance based on clinical definitions collected prospectively by infection control professionals. Comparison of HA-CDI incidence rates calculated by automated vs conventional surveillances were performed with χ2, incidence rate ratios, and linear regression. A subset of discordant cases was further investigated by reviewing medical records. Results: Overall, conventional surveillance reported 3,211 cases of HA-CDI for an incidence rate of 4.94 per 10,000 patient-days. Automated surveillance detected 4,708 cases, for an incidence rate of 7.24 per 10,000 patient-days (incidence rate ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.40–1.53). Full concordance between both surveillance methods was observed in 62% of cases, while 34% of cases were detected only by automated surveillance, and 4% were detected by conventional surveillance only. Between 2013 and 2022, an identical declining trend in HA-CDI incidence rates of –0.54 cases per 10,000 patient-days was observed with both surveillance methods. A subset of 49 cases detected only by automated surveillance were reviewed; the main reasons for discrepancy were delayed testing (39%), colonization (24%), misclassifications (14%), and interinstitutional transfers (12%). Conclusions: HA-CDI incidence rates calculated by automated surveillance were higher than those of conventional surveillance, but the overestimation was consistent over time, suggesting that a correction factor could improve precision.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare EpidemiologySame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207