Impact of Protocol-Based Guidelines on the Management and Outcome of Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage in a District General Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A prospective audit of acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage was conducted between January and September 2000 at Frimley Park Hospital to determine the impact of introducing an upper GI bleeding protocol based on Rockall's initial risk scoring system. Fifty-seven patients and 52 patients were in the pre- and postprotocol phases of the study respectively. Fifty per cent (28) of the patients in the first phase and 40% (21) of the patients in the second phase belonged to the high risk group. In the preprotocol phase, endoscopy was performed in 86% (49) of cases with 60% of patients having an esophogastroduodenoscopy within 24 h. Thirty-three per cent of the high risk group failed to have an endoscopic examination within 24 h. Only two of 57 patients required surgery and the mortality was 14%. In the postprotocol phase, endoscopy was performed in 79% (42) of patients and 68% (36) patients had endoscopy within 24 h. Only four of 21 patients belonging to the high risk group had their endoscopy after 24 h of the admission. Patients were better monitored and mortality was reduced to 7.5%. Reduction of mortality from upper GI hemorrhage followed the introduction of an agreed protocol based on risk scoring.
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 | 0.024 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".