MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147239496 · doi:10.1136/gut.2009.198598

Emergency endoscopy cover: cost and benefits?

2010· letter· en· W2147239496 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Barkun

Bibliographic record

VenueGut · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopyObservational studyEmergency departmentIntensive care medicineAuditTherapeutic endoscopyPortal hypertensionUpper gastrointestinal bleedingGeneral surgeryEsophagogastroduodenoscopyEmergency medicineMedical emergencySurgeryInternal medicineCirrhosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of the elapsed time between initial presentation of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) and the performance of a gastroscopy remains poorly understood, despite being the focus of much research and consistent recommendations across societies.1–4 Furthermore, as in other areas of medicine, the improved efficacy observed in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients presenting with non-variceal UGIB may not translate into similar benefits in a real-life setting. The national audit by Hearnshaw et al (published online) thus provides a plethora of important observational information, including insights into after-hours endoscopy.5 These new data need to be interpreted in light of existing guidelines and their supportive evidence. Although the evidence discussed below pertains to all patients presenting with UGIB, for the most part it does not specifically address patients with a high likelihood of bleeding from complications of portal hypertension (usually ∼10–15% of all patients with UGIB6 7). A multidisciplinary approach with timely involvement of a trained endoscopist and endoscopy assistant is widely recommended1–4; such involvement may entail after-hours availability, since early endoscopy is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with acute non-variceal UGIB. Indeed, the performance of an early gastroscopy allows for safe and prompt discharge of patients classified as low risk, improves patient outcomes for patients classified as high risk and reduces resource utilisation for patients classified as either low or high risk.4 The definition of early endoscopy varies widely among studies, from 2 to 24 h after presentation to the emergency department.3 4 8 9 The improvement in outcomes attributable to performing endoscopic haemostasis in patients with high-risk endoscopic lesions has been shown.10–14 Yet it is important to realise that the benefits attributable to early endoscopy relate to both its diagnostic and therapeutic roles in managing patients with non-variceal UGIB. Several …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0690.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGutSame topicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207