MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161672112 · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300019

Improving outcomes from acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Table 1

2012· review· en· W2161672112 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vipul Jairath, Alan Barkun

Bibliographic record

VenueGut · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUpper gastrointestinal bleedingObservational studyPsychological interventionIntensive care medicineGastrointestinal bleedingBest practiceHealth careInternal medicineEndoscopyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is predominantly non-variceal in origin and remains one of the most common challenges faced by gastroenterologists and endoscopists in daily clinical practice. Despite major advances in the approach to the management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) over the past decade including prevention of peptic ulcer bleeding, optimal use of endoscopic therapy1 and high-dose proton pump inhibition,2 it still carries considerable morbidity, mortality and health economic burden. Although many modernised healthcare systems report reductions in case death over time,3–5 most likely attributable to the aforementioned advances in addition to general supportive care, mortality remains appreciably high. Of particular note, rebleeding rates—one of the most important predictive factors of mortality and arguably the best reflection of interventions directly targeted at bleeding—have not significantly improved from longitudinal data in the past 15 years.6 7 In addition to high-quality trials that have informed best evidence-based practice guidelines in recent years,8 we have been provided with a plethora of detailed ‘real-life’ outcome data from multicentre observational studies of UGIB originating from Canada (RUGBE,9 REASON10 AND REASON-211), Italy (PNED-112 and PNED-213) and the UK,14 enabling an assessment of how well such guidelines are adhered to and serving to highlight deficiencies in existing aspects of care which could be improved upon. These studies are further described in table 1. View this table: Table 1 Description of study designs and inclusion criteria Using data from published papers of the aforementioned studies, we highlight a number of areas in the management of NVUGIB where efforts could be targeted to improve existing shortcomings in care. In addition we provide suggestions for parameters upon which improvements in care may be monitored in longitudinal studies as well as highlighting key areas for …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1390.033

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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