MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921857140 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.226

A227 USE OF GBS SCORE, TIME TO ENDOSCOPY, AND PROTON PUMP INHIBITOR USE IN PATIENTS PRESENTING WITH UPPER GI BLEEDING TO THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT

2019· article· en· W2921857140 on OpenAlexaffabout
Simrat Sandha, J Stach, Michael J. Bullard, Brendan P. Halloran, H. Blain, D. Grigat, Eddy Lang, Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEsophagogastroduodenoscopyEmergency departmentMelenaUpper gastrointestinal bleedingRetrospective cohort studyProton-pump inhibitorVomitingEmergency medicineInternal medicineEndoscopyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common presentation to the emergency department (ED) and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Early endoscopic intervention within 24 hours has been shown to reduce re-bleeding rates and lower morbidity and mortality. However, low-risk patients can often be managed through outpatient follow-up. The aim of this study was to compare the timing and appropriateness of endoscopy and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use in a tertiary care Emergency Department (ED) setting for low and high risk patients determined using the Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS). Retrospective chart review was conducted to examine the management of patients presenting with an UGIB in 2016 to the University of Alberta Hospital ED. TANDEM and Emergency Department Information System (EDIS) databases were queried to identify patients using specific ICD-10 codes and the CEDIS presenting complaints of vomiting blood or blood in stool/melena. Patients with GBS from 0 to 3 were categorized as low-risk and those with a GBS > 3 were considered high-risk with: appropriateness of and time to endoscopic intervention, disposition of patient at 24 hours, and use of oral or intravenous (IV) PPIs determined for each group. A total of 400 patients (228 males, mean age 61 years [range 18 to 97 years]) were included. The median GBS was 9. A total of 319/400 patients (80%) underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Of these, EGD was performed within 24 hours in 37% of patients (29/78) with GBS 0 to 3 and in 77% (248/322) with GBS greater than 3. Of the remaining high-risk patients, 11% (36/322) underwent EGD after 24 hours and 12% (38/322) did not undergo EGD. The endoscopic diagnoses were peptic ulcer disease (PUD) in 41% of patients (130/319), esophagitis in 18% (56/319), and esophageal varices in 14% (45/319). PPIs (data available 375/400) were administered (mainly IV) to 93% (279/300) of high-risk and 79% (59/75) of low-risk patients. Data on patient disposition showed that 60/322 (19%) high-risk patients were discharged from the ED within 24 hours and only 31/60 (52%) of these underwent EGD before discharge. Of 29 low-risk patients undergoing EGD within 24 hours, 9 (31%) were admitted, 17 (59%) were discharged from ED, and 3 (10%) were kept for observation in the ED greater than 24 hours. Of low-risk patients, 76% (59/78) were discharged from the ED within 24 hours. A majority of patients presenting with UGIB appropriately received endoscopy within 24 hours. While most high-risk patients were admitted within 24 hours, 19% were discharged from the ED. 76% of low-risk patients were discharged from the ED within 24 hours. As expected, PPI use was high in these patients. PRIHS

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207