Red blood cell transfusion is associated with increased rebleeding in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There exists considerable practice variation and little evidence to guide red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). Studies in other critically ill cohorts suggest associations between transfusions and adverse patient outcomes. AIM: To characterise any possible clinically-relevant association between RBC transfusion following NVUGIB with rebleeding and mortality. METHODS: Observational study utilising the Canadian Registry of patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Endoscopy (RUGBE). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine and quantify independent associations between RBC transfusion and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 1677 patients were included (66.2 ± 16.8 years, 61.7% male, 2.5 ± 1.7 comorbid conditions, initial haemoglobin, 96.8 ± 27.2 g/L); 53.7% received RBC transfusions (2.9 ± 1.6 units of blood), 31.6% had haemodynamic instability, 5.1% fresh blood on rectal examination and 8.6% in the nasogastric tube aspirate. Endoscopic haemostasis was performed in 35.2%. Overall rebleeding (defined as continuous bleeding, rebleeding or surgery) and mortality rates were 17.9% and 5.4%, respectively. After adjusting for potential confounders, transfusion of RBC within 24 h of presentation was significantly and independently associated with an increased risk of rebleeding (OR: 1.0, 95% CI: 0.6-1.8), but not death (OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 0.94-2.23). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests an association between RBC transfusion following NVUGIB and subsequent rebleeding, after appropriate and extensive adjustment for confounding. Prospective randomised trial evidence is needed to identify the most efficacious and cost-effective transfusional strategies in these patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".