Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Characteristics and Clinical Outcome of Patients Treated With an Intensive Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years major advances have been made in the management of patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of this study was to investigate the characteristics and clinical outcome of patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) treated with an intensive protocol. METHODS: We analyzed the medical records of 528 patients with ALGIB. All patients after hemodynamic stabilization underwent colonoscopy during the first 24 h of hospitalization and capsule enteroscopy when needed. Patients with massive ongoing bleeding underwent computed tomography angiography (CTA), and when active bleeding was detected embolization was immediately performed. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 70.2 ± 14.6 years and 271 (51.3%) of them were men. At least one comorbidity was present in 464 patients (87.9%), cardiovascular disease in 266 (50.4%), while 158 (30%) patients were on antiplatelet drugs and 96 (18.2%) on anticoagulants. The most common causes of bleeding were diverticulosis (19.7%) and ischemic colitis (19.3%). Thirty-six patients (6.9%) had small intestinal bleeding. In 117 patients (22.2%) active bleeding or recent bleeding stigmata were found and in 82 of them (92.1%) endoscopic hemostasis was applied. Embolization was performed in 10 (1.9%) and was successful in seven (70%) cases, while surgical hemostasis was required in only six (1.1%) cases. Forty-four (8.3%) patients had a rebleeding episode, and 13 patients died with an overall mortality of 2.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Management of ALGIB based on an intensive protocol is safe and effective. The bleeding source can be identified in most cases with a favorable outcome.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".