Management and outcomes of peptic ulcer disease in pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Given the altered physiology of pregnancy, gastroenterologists are often reluctant to perform endoscopic procedures in pregnant women. The purpose of our study was to compare management practices and outcomes among pregnant and nonpregnant women admitted to the hospital for peptic ulcer disease (PUD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective matched cohort study was carried out using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project - National Inpatient Sample from 1999 to 2015. A cohort of pregnant women with PUD was generated and compared with an age-matched cohort of nonpregnant women with PUD at a 1:5 ratio. Conditional logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the adjusted effect of PUD on variables and outcomes of interest, including associated conditions, management and treatment types, and complications. RESULTS: PUD was diagnosed in 2535 pregnant women and 12,675 age-matched nonpregnant women during the 16-year study period. As compared with nonpregnant women, pregnant women with PUD were less likely to undergo diagnostic or therapeutic esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) for this indication. Outcomes including fever, infection, sepsis, shock, and transfusion were less likely to occur in pregnant women as compared to nonpregnant women. Pregnant women also experienced shorter hospital stays. Pregnant women who underwent EGD were more likely to experience a venous thromboembolism than nonpregnant women. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women with PUD are less likely to undergo interventional diagnostic and therapeutic procedures than nonpregnant women with PUD. The reluctance to intervene in pregnancy does not appear to result in more adverse PUD-associated outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".