{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03222094361334868, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012658227848101266, 'mean_word_length': 5.258992805755396, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Clinical and demographic profile of patients reporting for Clostridium difficile infection in a tertiary care hospital

of toxins by ELISA, though considered to be suboptimal in terms of sensitivity (60-90%) and specificity (approx. 95%). The positive and negative predictive values of ELISA kits vary depending on the prevalence of patient condition. If the prevalence of CDT in the faecal samples is <10%, the positive predictive value dips to <50% and thus laboratory diagnosis by itself cannot be expected as a reliable diagnosis for clinical management.[3] A false negative result can lead to inappropriate medical management, worsening of CDI, risk of outbreaks and under-reporting; whereas, a false positive result causes lack of appropriate treatment, missing diagnosis of the actual cause of diarrhoea, over-reporting and anxiety to the patient and the family.