Role of the endoscopic Doppler probe in <scp>nonvariceal</scp> upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of the Doppler endoscopic probe (DEP) remains unclear in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). We thus performed a systematic review characterizing the effectiveness of DEP in patients with NVUGIB addressing this question. METHODS: A literature search was done until July 2021 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science. A series of meta-analyses were performed assessing outcomes among observational and interventional studies for DEP signal positive and negative lesions as well as DEP-assisted versus standard endoscopies. The primary outcome was "overall rebleeding"; secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, bleeding-related mortality, need for surgery, length of stay, intensive care unit stay, and angiography. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included from 1911 citations identified. Observational studies compared bleeding lesions with DEP-positive versus DEP-negative signals (11 studies, n = 800 prehemostasis; five studies, n = 148 with posthemostasis data). Three interventional studies (n = 308) compared DEP-assisted to standard endoscopy management. DEP signal positive versus negative lesions either prior to or following any possible hemostasis were at greater risk of overall rebleeding (odds ratio [OR] 6.54 [2.36, 18.11] and OR 25.96 [6.74, 100.0], respectively). The use of DEP during upper endoscopy significantly reduced overall rebleeding rates (OR 0.27 [0.14, 0.54]). When removing outcomes analysis for which only one study was available, all evaluable outcomes were improved with DEP characterization of management guidance except for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: Although with low certainty evidence, DEP-related information improves on sole visual prediction of rebleeding in NVUGIB, with DEP-guided management yielding decreased overall rebleeding, bleeding-related mortality, and need for surgery.
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".