MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2921528687 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.223

A224 BLOOD TRANSFUSION IN UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING: EVALUATING PHYSICIAN PRACTICES IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT

2019· article· en· W2921528687 on OpenAlexaffabout
J Stach, Simrat Sandha, Michael J. Bullard, Brendan P. Halloran, H. Blain, Gurpal Sandha, D. Grigat, Eddy Lang, Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentEmergency physicianMedicineUpper gastrointestinal bleedingBlood transfusionGastrointestinal bleedingMedical emergencyEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineSurgeryNursingEndoscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common presentation to emergency departments (ED). Of these patients, 35–45% receive a blood transfusion. Guidelines for blood transfusion in stable UGIB have been well established, and recommend a hemoglobin (Hb) level of 70 g/L as the transfusion target. There is no consensus on a transfusion threshold for unstable UGIB. There is limited data regarding physician practices in the ED. i) To determine the appropriateness of blood transfusions in UGIB in a tertiary care hospital ED. ii) To determine if the current guideline recommendation for a transfusion target of a Hb of 70 g/L is appropriate in unstable UGIB. We retrospectively reviewed patients presenting with UGIB to the University of Alberta Hospital ED in 2016. The Emergency Department Information System (EDIS) and TANDEM databases were queried for ICD-10 codes and the EDIS complaints of vomiting blood or blood in stool/melena. These patients were screened for blood transfusions, and only those who received a blood transfusion are reported here. Data were obtained from the patient records. Chart derived data were verified with records obtained from the blood bank. For each patient, the history, vitals, Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS), relevant labs, and record of blood transfusions were collected and organized into a case summary. Each patient summary was presented individually to a panel of three expert clinicians (2 Gastroenterology, 1 Emergency Medicine), who then decided on the appropriateness of each blood transfusion by consensus. 43.5% (87/200) of patients presenting with UGIB received a blood transfusion. Of these, 80.4% (70/87) were judged to be appropriate. Details of the transfusion data are shown in Table 1. Of all transfusions received by patients with a Hb >70 g/L, 56.4% (22/39) were considered appropriate. 80% of blood transfusions for UGIB at our institution were considered appropriate by a panel of expert clinicians. All transfusions under the recommended guideline of 70 g/L were considered appropriate. In addition, the majority of transfusions above a Hb of 70 g/L were considered appropriate. Further studies evaluating the feasibility of current guideline recommendations in an ED setting are required. Educational interventions should be created to reduce inappropriate blood transfusions above a Hb of 70 g/L. Table 1: Blood transfusions (total number and appropriate) organized by hemoglobin level at time of transfusion. Emergency Strategic Clinical Network (ESCN), Alberta Health Services (AHS)

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicGastrointestinal motility and disorders→French-language works237,207→