Regional Differences in Outcomes of Nonvariceal upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is associated with significant mortality. OBJECTIVE: To examine several factors that may impact the mortality and 30-day rebleed rates of patients presenting with NVUGIB. METHODS: A retrospective study of the charts of patients admitted to hospital in either the Saskatoon Health Region (SHR) or Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region (RQHR) (Saskatchewan) in 2008 and 2009 was performed. Mortality and 30-day rebleed end points were stratified according to age, sex, day of admission, patient status, health region, specialty of the endoscopist and time to endoscopy. Logistic regression modelling was performed, controlling for the Charlson comorbidity index, age and sex as covariates. RESULTS: The overall mortality rate observed was 12.2% (n=44), while the overall 30-day rebleed rate was 20.3% (n=80). Inpatient status at the time of the rebleeding event was associated with a significantly increased risk of both mortality and rebleed, while having endoscopy performed in the RQHR versus SHR was associated with a significantly decreased risk of rebleed. A larger proportion of endoscopies were performed both within 24 h and by a gastroenterologist in the RQHR. CONCLUSION: Saskatchewan has relatively high rates of mortality and 30-day rebleeding among patients with NVUGIB compared with published rates. The improved outcomes observed in the RQHR, when compared with the SHR, may be related to the employ of a formal call-back endoscopy team for the treatment of NVUGIB.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".