Differences in Managing Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy between East and West
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decreasing the bleeding risk associated with gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures and minimizing the thromboembolic risk of withdrawing medications are very important for the patients taking anticoagulants and antiplatelets. Western guidelines on managing anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications in GI endoscopy suggest a polypectomy with aspirin medication or a biopsy with warfarin medication. However, Eastern endoscopists' adherence to Western guidelines may be responsible for Easteners experiencing massive bleedings. During the cessation of drugs, it should be emphasized that Asians may be predisposed to different forms of embolism more likely to be of the cerebrovascular system, whereas Westerners more likely to be of the cardiovascular variety. To better understand the differences between the East and West, differences in drug metabolism should be considered that results in greater body weight-normalized plasma unbound clearance of drug in Easterners. Taken as a whole, different managements are required for GI endoscopy in patients on anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet medications based on differences in metabolism of drugs, risk of hemorrhage, and forms of thromboembolism.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".