Investigative modalities for massive lower gastrointestinal bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of various diagnostic modalities in the assessment of patients with massive lower gastrointestinal bleeding. The charts of all patients admitted to a McGill University affiliated teaching hospital with the diagnosis of lower gastrointestinal bleeding over a 25-year period were reviewed. There were 136 patients who underwent 202 admissions. The information documented included demographics on age, gender, co-morbid disease, prescribed medications, requirements for blood transfusions, orthostatic change in blood pressure, acute drop in hematocrit (to <30%), and exclusion of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Among the 202 admitted patients there were 116 men and 86 women), with an average age of 70 years (range 16-95 years). At least one significant medical disease was found in 93% of these patients; and 20% were on aspirin and 5% on anticoagulants at the time of diagnosis. Rigid or flexible sigmoidoscopy was performed in 68 and 18 patients, respectively, with a definitive diagnosis made in 2.9% and 11.0%, respectively. Colonoscopy was performed in 152 cases, 20 of which were incomplete; a specific diagnosis was made for 59 admissions (45%). A red blood cell or colloid scan was performed on 53 patients, with extravasation noted in 13 (24.5%); a localized site of bleeding was identified in 9 cases (17%). Angiography was performed on 31 patients with bleeding sites localized in 6 (19%). Barium enemas were completed in 85 of 92 patients, and the presumptive cause of bleeding was identified in 72% of those with a complete examination. The most common causes identified were diverticulosis in 52 patients and angiodysplasia in 14. The cause of bleeding was not detected in 48 (35%). Bleeding stopped in most patients spontaneously, with only 7 requiring operation. The average number of units transfused was 3 (range 0-26). Scintigraphy and angiography were less efficacious than colonoscopy for localizing the site and etiology of the bleeding. Despite the combination of investigative modalities, a definitive diagnosis was not made in 35% of the admitted patients. The need for operative intervention in our study was lower than in most previous reports.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".