Time to Endoscopy and Outcomes in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common problem associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Previous studies show that immediate endoscopies do not affect outcomes in patients; however, endoscopic interventions have evolved. The present retrospective review of endoscopies performed at a large teaching hospital assessed the timing of endoscopy with respect to the morbidity and mortality of UGIB. METHODS: Diagnostic billing codes were used to assess all inpatients of gastroenterologists at the University Hospital of the London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, from July 2004 to June 2006, using a centralized data recording system. Time to endoscopy (within 6 h, 6 h to 24 h and beyond 24 h) were compared for the outcomes of mortality, need for surgery and transfusion requirements. RESULTS: From July 2004 to June 2006, there were 502 upper endoscopies performed for the indication of suspected UGIB and 375 for overt acute nonvariceal UGIB. Approximately 10% of cases revealed variceal bleeding. When comparing endoscopy within 6 h with endoscopy at 6 h to 24 h, there were no significant differences in mortality, need for surgery (OR 3.6 and 2.8, respectively, compared with endoscopy beyond 24 h) or transfusion requirements. Even when assessing the group that received endoscopic hemostasis, time to endoscopy was not associated with better outcomes. Multivariate analysis did not demonstrate any advantages for early endoscopy (less than 6 h) compared with endoscopy within 24 h. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding can be effectively managed with endoscopy within 24 h.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".