MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410976142 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000006667

Diarrhea in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Nested Multicenter Substudy

2025· article· en· W4410976142 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Joanna C. Dionne, Jennie Johnstone, Diane Heels‐Ansdell, Parsa T. Khazaneh, Nicole Zytaruk, France Clarke, Lori Hand, Tina Millen, William Dechert, Rebecca Porteous, F. C. Auld, Miranda Hunt, Eileen Campbell, Tracey Bentall, Tracy Campbell, Orla Smith, Louise Rose, Yaseen M. Arabi, Erick Duan, M. Elizabeth Wilcox, Lauralyn McIntyre, Bram Rochwerg, Tim Karachi, Neill K. J. Adhikari, Emmanuel Charbonney, Charles St.-Arnaud, Arnold S. Kristof, Kosar Khwaja, François Marquis, Ryan Zarychanski, Eyal Golan

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity of AlbertaSt. Michael's HospitalJoseph Brant HospitalKingston General HospitalOttawa HospitalUniversity HospitalUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of TorontoIsland HealthBrantford Energy (Canada)Hamilton Health SciencesUniversity of ManitobaSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Frailty NetworkAcademic Medical Organization of Southwestern OntarioMcMaster University
KeywordsMedicineDiarrheaInternal medicineIntensive care unitClinical endpointIncidence (geometry)Intensive care medicinePediatricsClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence and incidence of diarrhea, diarrhea risk factors, processes of care, and clinical outcomes associated with diarrhea in invasively ventilated patients in the ICU. DESIGN: Bedside nurses prospectively documented each patient's bowel movement (BM) using the Bristol Stool Chart type and number. Research Coordinators collected baseline and daily data evaluating risk factors for diarrhea and patient outcomes. The diarrhea definition was the World Health Organization definition of ≥3 loose or watery BMs (Bristol type 6 or 7) per day. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate risk factors and the association with the risk of death in the ICU. SETTING: Forty-four ICUs in Canada, the United States, and Saudi Arabia. PATIENTS: All 2,650 invasively ventilated critically ill patients were enrolled in this preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized trial that evaluated the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG on infectious outcomes. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 2,650 patients, the mean age (sd) was 59.8 (16.5) years, with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II Score of 22.0 (7.8); 61.2% received inotropes/vasopressors on study day 1. Diarrhea occurred among 60.4% of patients and on 18.2% of ICU study days. Independent risk factors for diarrhea were a history of Clostridioides difficile infection, laxatives, and antibiotic use. Adjusted for these factors, enteral nutrition, particularly with moderate-high-protein content, also increased the risk of diarrhea. Univariable analysis suggested that diarrhea was associated with C. difficile testing, fecal management device insertion, and increased length of ICU and hospital stay. After adjusting for illness severity, mechanical ventilation, inotropes/vasopressors, renal replacement therapy, and severe infections, diarrhea was not associated with an increased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: Diarrhea is common among invasively ventilated patients. Risk factors include a history of C. difficile, use of antibiotics, laxatives, and enteral nutrition, particularly moderate-high-protein composition feeds.

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 score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.340 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207