Systematic review: the presenting international normalised ratio (INR) as a predictor of outcome in patients with upper nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of an elevated international normalised ratio (INR) as part of initial risk stratification in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) remains poorly characterised. AIM: To assess the usefulness of the initial INR in patients with NVUGIB. METHOD: After a systematic review, we included the presenting INR and other validated prognosticators in multivariable models predicting rebleeding and mortality. Data are reported as odd ratios and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Only two of 769 candidate studies were useful, but reported disparate, highly selected NVUGIB patients with varying threshold initial INR values, yielding conflicting results on predictive ability. The RUGBE cohort included 1869 patients (mean age 66.3 ± 16.8, 38.1% female) with a mean presenting INR of 1.5 ± 1.7. 462 (24.7%) patients had an elevated INR (INR > 2.5 in 7.6%). INR did not add to the prediction of rebleeding. An INR >1.5, in contradistinction, significantly predicted mortality (OR: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.13-3.41). CONCLUSIONS: An elevated INR at initial presentation does not predict rebleeding in NVUGIB. A value 1.5 or greater, however, is associated with increased patient mortality after adjustment for validated prognosticators. The INR appears most useful as proxy of co-morbid burden at the time of initial assessment in NVUGIB.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".