Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need for emergency endoscopy is a matter of debate. The time interval for emergency procedures remains to be defined. Most authors propose a time span of 24 h as emergency time, while some define a period of 72 h (especially in acute pancreatitis). Several studies have shown a possible benefit for a select group of patients. Four main indications are established for emergency endoscopy: acute gastrointestinal bleeding (variceal and nonvariceal), acute biliary pancreatitis and acute cholangitis. In the case of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, emergency endoscopy enables exact diagnosis and appropriate therapy, and provides important prognostic information. There is some evidence that emergent endoscopic injection therapy improves clinical outcome and reduces mortality in patients with acute ulcer bleeding. Patients do not benefit if endoscopy is performed only as a diagnostic procedure. Controversial results were published recently for emergency endoscopy in acute biliary pancreatitis. There is good evidence that emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is helpful in patients with severe pancreatitis and stone impaction if performed within the first 24 h after onset of symptoms. However, emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is not beneficial for patients with mild pancreatitis if performed later than 72 h (or 24 h) after onset of symptoms. There is a limited number of well established evidence-based indications for emergency endoscopy. Some other indications are still a matter of debate, and controversial opinions have been published.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.017 |
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".