Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Ischemic Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence and clinical characteristics of lower gastrointestinal (LGI) bleeding due to ischemic colitis with those with LGI bleeding of other causes. METHODS: A chart review was performed of patients admitted with LGI bleeding to Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, between July 1, 1997 and January 31, 2000. RESULTS: Of 124 patients with LGI bleeding, 24 cases were due to ischemic colitis, 62 to diverticulosis, 11 to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and 27 to all other causes ('others'). The average ages of patients in each group were 66.5, 76.5, 40.5 and 77.5 years, respectively. Patients with ischemic colitis were statistically younger than those with diverticular bleeding and 'others'. Patients with IBD were younger than those in the other three groups. The only statistical difference for vascular disease risks was hypertension, because of its absence from the IBD group. Three patients with ischemic colitis underwent blood transfusions, while 23 with diverticulosis, 15 'others' and none with IBD received blood. Three patients with ischemic colitis and one patient from the 'others' group died. More women (75) than men (49) had LGI bleeding - in total and within each subgroup. Of women with LGI bleeding, many more with ischemic colitis (44.4%) than with diverticulosis (3.0%), IBD (0%) or 'others' (5.6%) were taking estrogen. CONCLUSIONS: Ischemic colitis was the second most common cause of LGI bleeding. LGI bleeding from all causes was more common in women than in men. Many more women in the ischemic colitis group than in the other groups were using estrogen therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".