MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2276825058 · doi:10.20452/pamw.1173

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: review of the evidence

2012· review· en· W2276825058 on OpenAlexafffund
Waleed Alhazzani, Mohammed Alshahrani, Paul Moayyedi, Roman Jaeschke

Bibliographic record

VenuePolskie Archiwum Medycyny Wewnętrznej · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster UniversityAstraZeneca
KeywordsStress ulcerMedicineSucralfateIntensive care medicinePneumoniaIncidence (geometry)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critically ill patients are at risk of developing stress ulcers in the upper digestive tract. Multiple risk factors have been associated with the development of this condition, with variable risk of association. Decades of research have suggested the benefit of using pharmacologic prophylaxis to reduce the incidence of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding, with no reduction in overall mortality. It has been the standard of care to provide prophylaxis to patients at risk. Options for prophylaxis include: proton‑pump inhibitors, histamine(2)‑receptor antagonists, or sucralfate. The choice of prophylaxis depends on multiple factors including the presence of risk factors, risk for nosocomial pneumonia, and possibly cost.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations41
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolskie Archiwum Medycyny WewnętrznejSame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207