Beta Blocker Prophylaxis for Patients With Variceal Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOALS: To characterize beta blocker therapy for the primary and secondary prevention of variceal hemorrhage. BACKGROUND: Variceal hemorrhage is one of the more frequent and severe complications of portal hypertension due to liver disease. Beta blocker therapy has been demonstrated to decrease risk of first bleed in patients with evidence of varices and recurrent bleeding and mortality in patients with history of prior variceal hemorrhage. STUDY: A total of 106 patients with liver disease hospitalized with suspected variceal hemorrhage were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Half of patients had known varices, 44 (41.5%) of whom had experienced prior variceal hemorrhage. Only 21 (20%) were receiving beta blocker therapy at admission and 41 (48%) at discharge. The majority were not receiving therapy for primary prophylaxis (94%). Specific characteristics associated with beta blocker use could not be identified, although more patients with history of greater than two variceal hemorrhages were receiving beta blocker at admission (73% vs. 41%, P = 0.04) CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that liver disease patients with varices are often not receiving beta blocker therapy to reduce risk of first or subsequent variceal hemorrhage. Opportunity exists to optimize use of this proven prophylactic treatment and bridge an apparent gap in standard of care.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".