The use of selective serotonin receptor inhibitors (<scp>SSRI</scp>s) is not associated with increased risk of endoscopy‐refractory bleeding, rebleeding or mortality in peptic ulcer bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Observational studies have consistently shown an increased risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in users of selective serotonin receptor inhibitors (SSRIs), probably explained by their inhibition of platelet aggregation. Therefore, treatment with SSRIs is often temporarily withheld in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. However, abrupt discontinuation of SSRIs is associated with development of withdrawal symptoms in one-third of patients. Further data are needed to clarify whether treatment with SSRIs is associated with poor outcomes, which would support temporary discontinuation of treatment. AIM: To identify if treatment with SSRIs is associated with increased risk of: (1) endoscopy-refractory bleeding, (2) rebleeding or (3) 30-day mortality due to peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: A nationwide cohort study. Analyses were performed on prospectively collected data on consecutive patients admitted to hospital with peptic ulcer bleeding in Denmark in the period 2006-2014. Logistic regression analyses were used to investigate the association between treatment with SSRIs and outcome following adjustment for pre-defined confounders. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the validity of the findings. RESULTS: A total of 14 343 patients were included. Following adjustment, treatment with SSRIs was not associated with increased risk of endoscopy-refractory bleeding (odds ratio [OR] [95% Confidence Interval (CI)]: 1.03 [0.79-1.33]), rebleeding (OR [95% CI]: 0.96 [0.83-1.11]) or 30-day mortality (OR [95% CI]: 1.01 [0.85-1.19]. These findings were supported by sensitivity and subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: According to our data, treatment with SSRIs does not influence the risk of endoscopy-refractory bleeding, rebleeding or 30-day mortality in peptic ulcer bleeding.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".