MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2315746725 · doi:10.1155/2005/292563

The Banding of an Esophageal Varix

2005· article· en· W2315746725 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Robert Enns

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVarixMedicineGastroenterologyVarices

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proportion of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGI) from esophageal varices varies among centres; however, in approximately 10% of all emergency patients with UGI bleeding, the source is identified as esophageal varices (1). Centres that have a special interest in liver disease may have a higher proportion of patients presenting with this problem. The significance of these lesions is highlighted by the high morbidity and mortality rates associated with the presence of acutely bleeding varices. Although varices from portal hypertension may develop within the stomach (ie, fundal), small intestine (duodenal, jejunal or ileal) or colon (classically rectal), the most common site is within the esophagus. The etiology of the varices is usually cirrhosis; however, any cause of portal hypertension (ie, portal vein thrombosis) can theoretically result in a similar vascular outcome. Overall, approximately 60% of patients with cirrhosis develop esophageal varices and 60% of these have a bleeding episode (2). The natural history of esophageal varices is dramatic in that up to one-third of patients may rebleed over the subsequent six weeks if untreated. The significance of this problem has therefore spawned numerous studies, and the optimal management of bleeding esophageal varices has been determined. The first step in the management of any UGI bleeding patient is resuscitation. As endoscopic therapy has become more widely available, the urgent call for the endoscopist tends be rapidly transmitted with alarming speed from the emergency room when an unstable patient arrives with hematemesis and/or melena. It should be clearly recognized that in the ‘ABCs’ of resuscitation, the ‘E’ for endoscopy actually comes after airway, breathing and circulation have been adequately managed. Most patients with UGI bleeding (approximately 80%) stabilize with intravenous fluid resuscitation. Access with two large-bore intravenous lines is preferable so that pharmacological agents and blood transfusions may be simultaneously administered. In the setting of esophageal variceal hemorrhage, the use of ancillary medications to improve outcomes (primarily by decreasing portal pressures) has been advocated. For many years, vasopressin (with or without nitroglycerin) was used at a dose of 0.4 units/min. Morbidity from the vasopressin occurs in 20% of patients if it is used in isolation; therefore, the addition of nitroglycerin has been instituted to decrease this risk. Another approach to avoid complications from vasopressin is to alter its underlying structure, so that a ‘slow-release’ vasopressin analogue results (glypressin). Glypressin has been associated with fewer side effects, but without improved efficacy. Unlike vasopressin, octreotide has no effect on systemic arterial pressure, cardiac index or pulse rate. Somatostatin and its longer-acting analogue octreotide are presently the primary pharmacological modality of therapy for UGI bleeding from esophageal varices. Somatostatin has a half-life of 2 min to 3 min, with a pharmacological half-life of 90 min. A bolus of 75 µg to 100 µg decreases splanchic blood flow by 25%, total hepatic blood flow by 25%, wedged hepatic vein pressure by 10% and measured varix pressure by approximately 35% (3-5). Somatostatin has been compared with vaso

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicLiver Disease and Transplantation→French-language works237,207→