MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791248179 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy008.039

A38 CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF PATIENTS UNDERGOING BALLOON-ASSISTED ENDOSCOPY FOR OBSCURE GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING

2018· article· en· W2791248179 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Mazurek, Sergio Zepeda-Gómez, Brendan P. Halloran, Christopher Teshima

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCulpritObscure gastrointestinal bleedingOccultEtiologyInternal medicineCapsule endoscopyEndoscopyGastrointestinal bleedingRetrospective cohort studyGastroenterologyGastric antral vascular ectasiaPathologyArgon plasma coagulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The etiology of gastrointestinal bleeding remains unclear in a sizable minority of patients despite extensive evaluation. In these patients, obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) poses a significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenge, resulting in higher patient morbidity and mortality, as well as increased utilization of health care resources. In this study, we evaluate the diagnostic yield and clinical outcomes of patients with OGIB who have undergone balloon-assisted endoscopy (BAE). We performed a large, retrospective cohort study of 311 consecutive patients who underwent BAE at our institution. Of these, 116 cases were identified to have had OGIB and were appropriate for inclusion in our analysis. Follow-up data were available for 110 patients, with median time to follow-up of 6.1 months (range 0.3 – 37.7). The pattern of bleeding, transfusion requirements, and frequency of OGIB control were captured. BAE identified bleeding sources in 79 patient cases (68.1%), of which, 66 (83.5%) had culprit small bowel pathology. Of these, vascular lesions were the most common finding, occurring in 39 patients (59.0%), followed by neoplasia (13.6%, 9 patients), and ulcerations/erosions (12.1%, 8 patients). Diagnostic yield was highest in those patients with active overt bleeding, compared to those with inactive or occult bleeding (80.0%, 20/25 patients vs 35.2%, 32/91 patients). Overall, OGIB was controlled in 58/110 patients (52.7%). Culprit vascular lesions demonstrated poorer control rates than ulcers/erosions, tumors/polyps, or unidentified pathology (38%, 14/37 patients vs 55.8%, 29/52 patients). Among those patients with uncontrolled OGIB, median 6-month red-cell transfusion requirements were lower post-procedure compared to those pre-procedure (0.69 units/month, range 0.00 – 50.7; vs 1.00 units/month, range 0.00 – 10.3). BAE is a useful diagnostic and therapeutic strategy in the management of patients with OGIB. Luminal evaluation of the small bowel with BAE should be undertaken as soon as OGIB is suspected, and preferably in proximity to active bleeding. Vascular lesions are particularly recalcitrant to endoscopic therapy and therefore warrant close monitoring. Outcomes for patients with OGIB after undergoing BAE Controlled OGIB is defined as the clinically stable condition meeting the following criteria: (1) the absence of any overt re-bleeding, (2) no further requirement of red cell transfusions, and (3) the resolution or absence of persistent anemia. None

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207