Management of Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: Comparison of an American and a Canadian Medical Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) remains a common indication for hospital admission. Differences in the structure, process and outcomes of care in the management of acute nonvariceal UGIH between providers in Canada and the United States have not been previously characterized. The aim of the present study was to compare the structure, process and outcomes of care between a Canadian and an American tertiary care medical centre in the management of acute nonvariceal UGIH. METHODS: Data were collected from identified cases of acute non-variceal UGIH at the two medical centres over two years. Process measures analyzed included the level of care (intensive care unit [ICU] monitored bed versus unmonitored bed) and hospital length of stay (HLOS). Outcomes assessed included rebleeding, inhospital mortality and readmission and/or death within 30 days of admission. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-five and 83 cases of acute non-variceal UGIH were identified at the American and Canadian centres, respectively. Cases at the American centre had a lower median HLOS, (2.6 versus 3.9 days, P<0.001) but were significantly more likely to be treated in an ICU or monitored setting (67% versus 16%, P<0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of rebleeding or death in hospital or within 30 days of discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Marked differences exist in the process of care between the Canadian and American medical centres in the management of acute nonvariceal UGIH, despite similar patient severity. Outcomes between the two centres were similar. Minimizing disparity in the process of care of acute UGIH between the two centres may reduce excessive use of resources in the management of acute UGIH without promoting adverse outcomes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".