Spread and Epidemiology of Clostridium difficile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. After reports of emerging outbreaks in Canada and the United States, Clostridium difficile– associated disease (CDAD) due to polymerase chain reaction ribotype 027 was detected in 2 medium-to-large hospitals in The Netherlands in 2005. Methods. National surveillance was initiated to investigate the spread and the epidemiology of CDAD. Mi-crobiologists were asked to send strains recovered from patients with a severe course of CDAD or recovered when an increased incidence of CDAD was noted. A standardized questionnaire was used to collect demographic, clinical, and epidemiological patient data. Strains were characterized by polymerase chain reaction ribotyping, toxinotyping, the presence of toxin genes, and antimicrobial susceptibility. Results. During the period from February 2005 through November 2006, 1175 stool samples from 863 patients were sent from 50 health care facilities. Of these patients, 218 (25.3%) had CDAD due to ribotype 027, and 645 patients (74.7%) had CDAD due to other ribotypes, mainly 001 (17.8%) and 014 (7.2%). Polymerase chain reaction ribotype 027 was more frequently present in general hospitals than in academic hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 4.38; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.60–12.0). Outbreaks of CDAD were observed in 10 hospitals and in 1 nursing home. Patients infected with ribotype 027 were significantly older (OR, 2.18; 95 % CI, 1.43–3.33), and significantly more patients used fluoroquinolones (OR, 2.88; 95 % CI, 1.01–8.20), compared with those who were infected with other ribotypes. Clear trends were observed for more severe diarrhea (OR, 1.99; 95 % CI, 0.83–4.73), higher attributable mortality (6.3 % vs. 1.2%; OR, 3.30; 95 % CI, 0.41–26.4), and more recurrences (OR, 1.44; 95 % CI,
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".