Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in octοgenarians: Clinical outcome and factors related to mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the aetiology, clinical outcome and factors related to mortality of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) in octogenarians. METHODS: We reviewed the records of all patients over 65 years old who were hospitalised with AUGIB in two hospitals from January 2006 to December of 2006. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A (65-80 years old) and Group B (>80 years old). RESULTS: Four hundred and sixteen patients over 65 years of age were hospitalized because of AUGIB. Group A included 269 patients and Group B 147 patients. Co-morbidity was more common in octogenarians (P=0.04). The main cause of bleeding was peptic ulcer in both groups. Rebleeding and emergency surgery were uncommon in octogenarians and not different from those in younger patients. In-hospital complications were more common in octogenarians (P=0.05) and more patients died in the group of octogenarians compared to the younger age group (P=0.02). Inability to perform endoscopic examination (P=0.002), presence of high risk for rebleeding stigmata (P=0.004), urea on admission (P=0.036), rebleeding (P=0.004) and presence of severe co-morbidity (P<0.0001) were related to mortality. In multivariate analysis, only the presence of severe co-morbidity was independently related to mortality (P=0.032). CONCLUSION: While rebleeding and emergency surgery rates are relatively low in octogenarians with AUGIB, the presence of severe co-morbidity is the main factor of adverse outcome.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".