Clinical Characteristics of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Hemodialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) frequently occurs in hemodialysis (HD) patients. But, clinical characteristics of UGIB in HD patients are not well reported yet. Objective: This study was designed to compare the clinical characteristics of UGIB between HD patients and normal population with intact renal function. Methods: This study enrolled 24 HD patients with UGIB. Age‐ and sex‐matched 26 patients with UGIB and normal renal function were selected as control group during the same period. Of the cases with UGIB, esophageal variceal bleedings due to liver cirrhosis were excluded in this study. We investigated the results of treatment and UGIB‐associated mortality for 3 months after the event and then compared previous gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (Sx), endoscopic findings, treatment results, and mortality between HD patients and control. Results: The results are summarized in the table. HD patients (n = 24) Control (n = 26) p value Age (years) 60±11 61±11 0.702 Sex [male/female (%)] 62.5/37.5 53.8/46.2 0.536 Previous GI Sx [asymptomatic/ symptomatic (%)] 33.3/66.7 65.3/34.7 0.024 Endoscopic diagnosis [vascular ectasia/others (%)] 45.8/54.2 15.3/84.7 0.020 Primary treatment [endoscopic/medical (%)] 70.8/29.2 61.5/38.5 0.488 Results of treatment Success/rebleeding (%) 75.0/25.0 92.4/7.6 0.095 Patient survival/UGIB‐ related death (%) 83.3/16.7 100/0 0.046 Conclusion: Previous gastrointestinal symptoms were less frequent in HD patients than normal population with intact renal function. In contrast, HD patients had higher incidence of vascular ectasia and mortality than normal population with intact renal function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".