MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Meta‐analysis: vasoactive medications for the management of acute variceal bleeds

2012· review· en· W2046521127 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerlipressinMedicineVasoactiveOctreotideVasopressinVasoactive intestinal peptideMeta-analysisSomatostatinInternal medicinePlaceboRandomized controlled trialRelative riskConfidence intervalNeuropeptide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Vasoactive medications such as vasopressin, somatostatin and their analogues (terlipressin, vapreotide and octreotide) are commonly used for the treatment of acute variceal bleeding. However, the risks and benefits of these interventions are not well understood. AIM: To undertake a meta-analysis of the efficacy of vasoactive medications in patients having acute variceal bleeds. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vasopressin, somatostatin and their analogues, administered to patients with acute variceal bleeds were identified based on systematic searches of nine electronic databases and multiple sources of grey literature. RESULTS: The search identified 3011 citations, and 30 trials with a total of 3111 patients met eligibility criteria. The use of vasoactive agents was associated with a significantly lower risk of 7-day mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.57-0.95; P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality of evidence), and a significant improvement in haemostasis (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.30; P < 0.001; I(2) = 28%; very low quality of evidence), lower transfusion requirements (pooled mean difference -0.70 units of blood transfused, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.38; P < 0.001; I(2) = 82%; moderate quality of evidence), and a shorter duration of hospitalisation (pooled mean difference -0.71 days; 95% CI -1.23 to -0.19; P = 0.007; I(2) = 0%; low quality of evidence). Studies comparing different vasoactive agents did not show a difference in efficacy, although the quality of evidence was very low. CONCLUSIONS: The use of vasoactive agents was associated with a significantly lower risk of acute all-cause mortality and transfusion requirements, and improved control of bleeding and shorter hospital stay. Studies comparing different vasoactive medications failed to demonstrate a difference in efficacy.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysishigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysishigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it