Clinically Significant Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Critically Ill Patients in An Era of Prophylaxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinical studies examining stress-related gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients vary in their clinical definitions and assessment of clinical significance. Although there is evidence that routine prophylaxis decreases stress-related gastrointestinal bleeding, recent studies indicate a decreasing incidence, independent of the use of prophylactic medications. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of and risk factors for clinically significant, endoscopically proven gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. METHODS: A database (prospectively collected data) of 8338 patients admitted to the surgical and medical intensive care units at major tertiary care center from July 1988 to April 1995 was examined. All patients with significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding as defined by a drop in hemoglobin of >20 g/L and endoscopic evidence of an upper GI tract source were identified. Risk factors for GI bleeding from stress ulceration were compared in bleeding and nonbleeding patients. A case-control study analyzing risk factors for bleeding in the abdominal aortic aneurysm subgroup was performed. RESULTS: After exclusion criteria, 12/7231 (0.17%) patients had clinically significant, endoscopically proven bleeding. Significant risk factors included age, septic shock, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, and nutritional support. Intensive care unit stay was prolonged in patients with stress-related bleeding. There was no difference in incidence of hypotension, clamp time, APACHE score, or operating room time in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm repair as compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: In an intensive care unit where stress prophylaxis is widely used, clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding is uncommon. Further study is needed to define the optimal prophylaxis regimen and the role for its selective use in high-risk 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".