Acute Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: Radiologic Diagnosis and Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage is common both in the emergency department and in the primary care setting [1]. In the United States, approximately 300,000 patients are admitted to the hospital annually [2]. Upper GI hemorrhage has an annual incidence that ranges from 40-150 episodes per 100,000 persons [3] compared with lower GI hemorrhage, which is less common, with an annual incidence that ranges from 20-27 episodes per 100,000 persons. The mortality rate from GI bleeding in the presence of hemodynamic instability may reach 40%, which makes accurate and prompt diagnosis of the source of bleeding crucial [4]. In more stable patients, the mortality is lower, ranging from 3.6%-19% [3,5,6]. In up to 75% of cases, bleeding will cease spontaneously, but recurrence may occur in 25%, which emphasizes the need for accurate diagnosis and effective therapy, preferably in the acute setting [2,6]. Endoscopy is considered the primary diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the setting of GI hemorrhage. Nevertheless, due to the large number of potential etiologies, a high prevalence of obscure bleeding sources, and the long length of the GI tract, with many segments inaccessible to endoscopy, imaging continues to play an important role in the diagnosis of GI hemorrhage [7]. Therefore, it is important that all diagnostic and interventional radiologists fully understand the role of imaging and endovascular treatment of GI hemorrhage. In this article, we
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".