High-dose versus low-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitor treatment for bleeding peptic ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation of: Liu N, Liu L, Zhang H et al. Effect of intravenous proton pump inhibitor regimens and timing of endoscopy on clinical outcomes of peptic ulcer bleeding. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 27(9), 1473–1479 (2012).Peptic ulcer bleeding is a common medical emergency associated with significant mortality and healthcare costs. All recent guidelines agree on the beneficial role of proton pump inhibitor treatment, but there is still controversy regarding the optimal dose and route of administration of proton pump inhibitors. The evaluated article reports on a large, single-center randomized controlled trial that compared the clinical efficacy of a low-dose twice-daily intravenous bolus regimen with a high-dose continuous intravenous infusion regimen in 875 patients with acute bleeding from peptic ulcers. The high-dose regimen was associated with significant reductions in rebleeding, blood transfusion requirements and length of hospital stay. There was no demonstrable difference in mortality or the need for endoscopic hemostatic treatment or surgery. We discuss the strengths and limitations of the evaluated article, as well as the implications for clinical practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".