Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the clinical success and complication rates following interventional embolization for treatment of acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) at a tertiary care centre. The secondary purpose was to evaluate results of practice change whereby multiphase CT angiography was requested prior to conventional angiograms. Methods: A retrospective chart review and analysis of 38 patients undergoing Interventional Radiology guided embolization for acute GIB was performed. Clinical success was defined as patient stability 30 days’ post embolization and complications included subsequent bleeding requiring endoscopy, surgery or additional embolization, or death. Results: Overall clinical success rate was 86.8% (33/38). Complications included 14 patients (36.8%) experiencing continued bleeding, 6 patients (15.8%) requiring repeat endoscopic evaluation, 8 patients (21.1%) requiring surgery, 3 patients (7.9%) requiring repeat embolization, and 4 deaths (10.5%). These results were not inferior to clinical success rates reported in the literature for GIB regardless of location. Positive predictive value for multiphase CT angiogram was 92.3% and the negative predictive value was 57.1%. Conclusions: Interventional angiography and embolization is an effective treatment for GIB with the most common complication being recurrent bleeding which may require additional endoscopic evaluation, surgical intervention or additional embolization. Clinical success and complication rates at this centre are similar to those reported in the literature. Continued evaluation of the utility of multiphase CT angiography prior to conducting embolization should be considered to determine its impact on rates of negative angiogram studies.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".