Anticoagulación luego de una hemorragia por úlcera péptica: riesgos de trombosis, mortalidad y sangrado recurrente
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Patients on chronic anticoagulation face a higher risk of peptic ulcer bleeding. In this setting, the risk-benefit equation of anticoagulation resumption remains undefined. Aims. To compare the risk of thrombosis and death between patients that resumed and did not resume anticoagulation after an index episode of peptic ulcer bleeding. The secondary objective was to compare time to re-bleeding between the groups. Methods. Retrospective cohort study of adult patients that suffered an index episode of peptic ulcer bleeding while on chronic anticoagulation. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether they resumed or not anticoagulation and were followed-up for one year. A multivariable, propensity score-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model was used to adjust for confounding. Adjusted survival curves were constructed. Results. 70 patients were included in the analysis; 64.3% were men. Median age at the time of PUB was 79 years (interquartile range (IQR): 72-83). Forty patients (57.1%) resumed anticoagulation after a median time of 15 days (IQR 5.25-41.75). Restarting anticoagulation was associated with a lower risk of thrombosis or death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.14; 95%CI 0.05-0.43) and did not increase the risk of recurrent bleeding significantly (HR 1.42; 95% CI 0.10-19.8). Conclusions. Resuming anticoagulation appears to reduce the hazard of thrombosis and death without increasing the risk of recurrent bleeding significantly.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".