MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795312292 · doi:10.1111/jgh.14147

Comparison of clinical outcomes between variceal and non‐variceal gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis

2018· article· en· W2795312292 on OpenAlexaff
Parul Tandon, Kirles Bishay, Stacey Fisher, Dominique Yelle, Ian Carrigan, Krista Wooller, Erin Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsOttawa Public HealthGeneral Dynamics (Canada)Ottawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeCirrhosisInternal medicineUpper gastrointestinal bleedingIntensive care unitVaricesEndoscopyGastroenterologyRetrospective cohort studyEsophageal varicesPortal hypertensionGastric varicesGastrointestinal bleedingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in cirrhosis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and can be classified as acute variceal bleeding (AVB) or non-variceal bleeding (NVB). Differences in mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and 30-day readmission have yet to be determined. As such, the study aimed to evaluate differences in these clinical outcomes in cirrhotic patients admitted with UGIB. METHODS: This retrospective study included all cirrhotic patients hospitalized for UGIB who underwent upper endoscopy from July 2014 to July 2016. AVB was defined as the presence of varices on endoscopy with high-risk stigmata such as cherry-red spots. Mortality, intensive care unit admission, hospital LOS, and 30-day hospital readmission were recorded and compared among patients with AVB and NVB. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients with cirrhosis were included, 73 with AVB and 43 with NVB. Patients with NVB were older than those with AVB (60.4 ± 11.1 vs 55.0 ± 9.5, P = 0.006) whereas patients with AVB were more likely to have known esophageal varices (64.4% vs 37.2%, P = 0.007). Patients with AVB and NVB had similar mortality (15.1% vs 9.3%, P = 0.57), hospital LOS (4.9, interquartile range: 3.6-6.9 days vs 5.0, interquartile range: 2.7-8.3 days), and 30-day readmission rates (19.2% vs 30.2%, P = 0.18). Severity of clinical presentation was associated with increased LOS and overall mortality, including the need for intensive care unit admission, but these were not associated with 30-day readmission rates. CONCLUSION: There were no differences in clinical outcomes, including mortality, in cirrhotic patients admitted with AVB and NVB.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations45
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gastroenterology and HepatologySame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207