Use of topical mineral powder as monotherapy for treatment of active peptic ulcer bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Hemospray (Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC, USA), a hemostatic powder, as monotherapy for active peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, single-arm study, patients with Forrest Ia or Ib peptic ulcers underwent endoscopic application of Hemospray as treatment of first intent. Effectiveness endpoints were successful hemostasis at the end of the index endoscopy, recurrent bleeding within 72 hours and from 72 hours to 30 days, adverse events requiring reintervention or resulting in morbidity or mortality, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Hemospray was successfully administered in 98.5% of patients (66/67). Hemostasis was achieved at the index endoscopy in 90.9% of patients (60/66) with Hemospray alone and in an additional 4 patients treated with additional modalities, yielding an overall hemostasis rate of 97.0% (64/66). Rebleeding occurred in 13.3% of patients (8/60), 5 within 72 hours and 3 between 72 hours and 30 days. Two cases of perforation and 2 patient deaths occurred during the study, but none of these cases or any other adverse events were attributed to the use of Hemospray. The rate of early rebleeding was significantly higher in patients with Forrest Ia ulcers compared with patients with Forrest Ib ulcers. Higher rates of early bleeding in patients with Forrest Ia ulcers is consistent with results from studies where Hemospray was used as rescue after failure of conventional methods. CONCLUSIONS: Hemospray is an effective initial treatment for patients with active peptic ulcer bleeding, but care should be taken to monitor for recurrent bleeding. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01306864.).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".