MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791352212 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.057

A57 ACUTE VARICEAL GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING DOES NOT INFER POOR SURVIVAL COMPARED TO NON-VARICEAL BLEEDING IN PATIENTS WITH CIRRHOSIS: A RETROSPECTIVE, OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

2018· article· en· W2791352212 on OpenAlexaffabout
Parul Tandon, Kirles Bishay, S Bishay, Dominique Yelle, Ian Carrigan, Krista Wooller, Erin Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCirrhosisInternal medicineGastroenterologyGastrointestinal bleedingObservational studyRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB) in cirrhosis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The most frequent cause of UGIB in cirrhosis is acute variceal bleed (AVB), though non-variceal bleed (NVB) may also occur. Whether there exists differences in mortality and clinical outcomes between AVB and NVB is unknown. To evaluate differences in clinical outcomes, such as mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and need for transfusion between AVB and NVB in patients with cirrhosis presenting with UGIB. All patients over the age of 18 with cirrhosis who presented to The Ottawa Hospital with UGIB and underwent upper endoscopy were included. AVB was defined as presence of varices on endoscopic examination with at least high-risk stigmata such as cherry-red spots or red-wale markings. NVB was defined as other etiology of UGIB such as peptic ulcer disease, portal hypertensive gastropathy, esophagitis, and dieulafoy lesions. The primary outcome was the risk of mortality of AVB and NVB in cirrhotic patients presenting with UGIB. We also compared hospital length of stay (LOS), 30-day hospital readmission, ICU admission, requirement for transfusion, and baseline characteristics such as demographics, cirrhosis complications, and presenting laboratory investigations between the two groups. Descriptive statistics were calculated using chi-square test and t-test with R v3.3. From 2014–2016, a total of 117 patients with cirrhosis were admitted with UGIB, 75 with AVB and 42 with NVB. The median age in the AVB group was 54.69 compared to 60.64 in the NVB group (p=0.001). There were no significant differences in gender or active alcohol use in both groups. The median model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was not significantly different in the AVB group (15.13, IQR 11.03–17.60) vs. the NVB group (15.09, IQR 10.92–23.21) (p=0.649). The risk of mortality was 13.3% in the AVB group compared to 9.5% in the NVB group (p=0.543). There was no significant difference in ICU admission (29.3% for AVB vs. 16.7% for NVB, p=0.128) or need for transfusion (65.3% for AVB vs. 54.8% for NVB, p=0.26). Patients who had AVB were more likely to have a history of previous esophageal varices (62.7%) compared to those who presented with NVB (38.1%) (p=0.011). There were no differences in history of hepatic encephalopathy, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and ascites in both groups. Hospital LOS was not significantly different for the AVB group (4.95, IQR 3.65–6.90) and NVB group (5.05, IQR 2.65–8.59) (p=0.42). Our results found no difference in mortality, hospital LOS, and need for ICU between AVB and NVB. A history of known esophageal varices may predict future AVB whereas an older age may predict NVB in cirrhosis. 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)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207