ArticleHealth science reports2026
Laboratory-Detected
Article in Health science reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sepsis disrupts intestinal microbiota, and broad-spectrum antibiotics may worsen dysbiosis. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 13,484 adult sepsis hospitalizations from MIMIC-IV. The exposure was any laboratory-detected C. difficile-positive stool test during the index hospitalization. Cox regression, detailed early-antibiotic adjustment, stabilized inverse probability weighting, timing- and assay-based sensitivity analyses, and a post hoc nested-model comparison assessed association and incremental prediction. Archived positive-subgroup machine-learning models were retained as exploratory risk-stratification analyses. Results: Detailed early-antibiotic adjustment substantially attenuated the association: the 30-day hazard ratio (HR) was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.87-1.11; Conclusions: While laboratory-detected
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.