MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000269369 · doi:10.1186/s13017-019-0283-9

Perforated and bleeding peptic ulcer: WSES guidelines

2020· article· en· W3000269369 on OpenAlexaff
Antonio Tarasconi, Federico Coccolini, Walter L. Biffl, Matteo Tomasoni, Luca Ansaloni, Edoardo Picetti, Sarah Molfino, Vishal G. Shelat, Stefania Cimbanassi, Dieter Weber, Fikri M. Abu‐Zidan, Fabio Cesare Campanile, Salomone Di Saverio, Gian Luca Baiocchi, Claudio Casella, Michael D. Kelly, Andrew W. Kirkpatrick, Ari Leppäniemi, Ernest E. Moore, Andrew Peitzman, Gustavo Pereira Fraga, Marco Ceresoli, Ronald V. Maier, Imtaz Wani, Vittoria Pattonieri, Gennaro Perrone, George C. Velmahos, Michael Sugrue, Massimo Sartelli, Yoram Kluger, Fausto Catena

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Emergency Surgery · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeptic ulcerPopulationDiseaseIncidence (geometry)Intensive care medicineHealth careSystematic reviewMEDLINEGeneral surgerySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Peptic ulcer disease is common with a lifetime prevalence in the general population of 5-10% and an incidence of 0.1-0.3% per year. Despite a sharp reduction in incidence and rates of hospital admission and mortality over the past 30 years, complications are still encountered in 10-20% of these patients. Peptic ulcer disease remains a significant healthcare problem, which can consume considerable financial resources. Management may involve various subspecialties including surgeons, gastroenterologists, and radiologists. Successful management of patients with complicated peptic ulcer (CPU) involves prompt recognition, resuscitation when required, appropriate antibiotic therapy, and timely surgical/radiological treatment. Methods: The present guidelines have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. To create these guidelines, a panel of experts was designed and charged by the board of the WSES to perform a systematic review of the available literature and to provide evidence-based statements with immediate practical application. All the statements were presented and discussed during the 5th WSES Congress, and for each statement, a consensus among the WSES panel of experts was reached. Conclusions: The population considered in these guidelines is adult patients with suspected complicated peptic ulcer disease. These guidelines present evidence-based international consensus statements on the management of complicated peptic ulcer from a collaboration of a panel of experts and are intended to improve the knowledge and the awareness of physicians around the world on this specific topic. We divided our work into the two main topics, bleeding and perforated peptic ulcer, and structured it into six main topics that cover the entire management process of patients with complicated peptic ulcer, from diagnosis at ED arrival to post-discharge antimicrobial therapy, to provide an up-to-date, easy-to-use tool that can help physicians and surgeons during the decision-making process.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0090.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations358
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Emergency SurgerySame topicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studiesFrench-language works237,207