Opportunities for Optimizing Pantoprazole Therapy in Patients with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the appropriateness of intravenous (IV) pantoprazole in subjects presenting with signs suspicious of acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) and to identify opportunities for optimizing its use. Methods Retrospective health record review of subjects receiving IV pantoprazole for suspected or confirmed AGIB was conducted at two affiliated teaching hospitals. Results Of the 175 subjects enrolled, 157 (90%) received a diagnostic endoscopy. The median time to endoscopy was 18.5 hours, and the median time to start pantoprazole was 6.9 hours. Thirty-seven subjects (21%) did not receive the appropriate pantoprazole dose of 80 mg bolus followed by 8 mg/h infusion, and 22 high-risk subjects (33%) received less than 60 hours of IV pantoprazole. The median duration of pantoprazole following endoscopy for low-risk subjects was 21.1 hours. Conclusion Opportunities to optimize the use of IV pantoprazole include initiating therapy quickly at the appropriate dosing regimen, continuing the infusion for 72 hours in patients with high-risk bleeds, and discontinuing the infusion promptly once a high-risk AGIB is ruled out.
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.
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 it