MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S670 The Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS) Is Associated With the Need for Endoscopic Intervention and Blood Transfusion in Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

2021· article· en· W3210620516 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexandra Davies, Hind H. Neamah, Anthony Teta, Grace M. Brennan, Bruce Kovan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEsophagogastroduodenoscopyUpper gastrointestinal bleedingBlood transfusionEmergency departmentRetrospective cohort studyIncidence (geometry)Emergency medicineInternal medicineGastrointestinal bleedingEndoscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: At an incidence of 48-160/100,000 individuals, upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is the most common gastroenterological emergency, in the United States, accounting for 300,000 hospitalizations and $3.3 billion in healthcare spending, yearly. GBS, a quick tool that uses non-endoscopic criteria for clinical stratification of UGIB, allows for early diagnosis and outcome prediction, including need for intervention. The goals of this study are to determine the GBS scores of patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and if the need for endoscopic intervention and blood transfusion are related to GBS in patients with UGIB. Methods: This is a cross-sectional retrospective study that included patients ≥18 years, who were admitted for UGIB to McLaren Macomb Medical Center (MMMC) and underwent EGD between July, 2018 and July, 2020. The patient encounters of interest were identified using international classification of disease (ICD 10) procedure codes for EGD. Demographics and the need for intervention or blood transfusion, variables comprising GBS, and other explanatory variables were extracted. Frequencies, percentages, and student T-test were used when appropriate. A stepwise regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of GBS. SPSS version 25 was used to analyze the data. Statistical significance was set at a p< 0.05. Results: A total of 130 observations were included in this analysis. No patients were noted to have a GBS ≤2, indicating successful evidence-based allocation of resources, as a GBS ≤1 to ≤2 is associated with safe outpatient management. We found that GBS was statistically significantly related to the need for intervention, blood transfusion, and age group. Additionally, those who needed intervention and blood transfusion scored 1.493 [mean GBS 13.13±3.28 versus 10.62±3.83 (P=0.004)] and 3.486 [mean GBS 13.12±2.68 versus 9.16±3.83 (P=0.000)] higher, respectively. Also, those who are ≤60 years-old scored 1.77 [mean GBS 9.38±4.11 versus 11.7±3.57 (P=0.002)] less. Conclusion: Our study is among a few that investigated and found a mean GBS associated with need for intervention and blood transfusion. Even at higher GBS, we may be able to further stratify patients’ risk and predict need for intervention and blood transfusion. Further research is needed to investigate this nuance.Table 1.: Study Methodology Quality Assessment on Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207