Intravenous esomeprazole for prevention of peptic ulcer re‐bleeding: rationale/design of Peptic Ulcer Bleed study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A limited number of trials have investigated the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors for peptic ulcer bleeding, and some study design issues have been identified. AIM: To present the design of a large trial evaluating the effects of intravenous esomeprazole on clinical outcomes in high-risk patients who have undergone endoscopic haemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: The Peptic Ulcer Bleed study is an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing either esomeprazole 80 mg intravenous bolus infusion for 30 min followed by esomeprazole 8 mg/h intravenously for 71.5 h, or placebo infusion for 72 h, after successful endoscopic haemostasis in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and associated high-risk stigmata. All patients will receive once daily oral esomeprazole 40 mg for 27 days after intravenous therapy. The primary end point is the rate of clinically significant re-bleeding during the first 72 h after endoscopy. Secondary end points include: rate of re-bleeding during the first 7 and 30 days after treatment; length of hospitalization; mortality; blood transfusion; endoscopic re-treatment and surgery. RESULTS: Expected 2008. CONCLUSIONS: The carefully designed protocol and quality control measures represent a pragmatic approach to contemporary challenges in peptic ulcer bleeding management and, it is hoped, qualify the Peptic Ulcer Bleed study as a new standard for future interventional studies.
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 | 0.051 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".