Is there a future for probiotics in preventing Clostridium difficile-associated disease and treatment of recurrent episodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
therapy. The gastroenterologist suggested administering another 10-day course of vancomycin in combination with high doses (3 g twice daily) of a bacterial probiotic and further recommended continuing the probiotic for several months. Ten days later, after discontinuing van-comycin, CDAD symptoms did not return. Within 4 weeks, the child grew 1 inch and gained 3 pounds. The probiotic was continued at the same dosage for 4 months and was slowly tapered to a lower maintenance dose.1 More than 7 years of follow-up have taken place since probiotics were initiated. Despite 9 months of recurrent CDAD with standard-of-care treatments, after probiotic supplementation was added to this child’s treatment regimen, CDAD did not recur. CDAD Incidence, Severity, and Presentation Since the turn of the century, nosocomial epidemics of CDAD have increased in the United States, Canada,
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.004 |
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".