Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Less Severe Bleeding in More Frail and Older Patients, Comparison Between Two Time Periods Fifteen Years Apart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) remains a common medical emergency with considerable morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to describe the patient characteristics, diagnoses and clinical outcomes of patients presenting with AUGIB nowadays and compare these with those of patients 15 years ago. Methods: This was a single-center survey of adults (> 16 years) presenting with AUGIB to a tertiary hospital. Data from 401 patients presenting with AUGIB in a tertiary hospital between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2020 were analyzed and compared with data from 434 patients presenting with AUGIB at the same hospital between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2005. Results: Nowadays, patients were older, mean age was 69.5 (± 15.4) vs. 66.2 (± 16.0) years, they had more frequently coexisting diseases (83.5% vs. 72.8%), especially cardiovascular diseases (62.3% vs. 52.5%), and more individuals were inpatients at onset of bleeding (8.2% vs. 4.1%). In addition, more patients were under anticoagulants (18.5% vs. 6.2%), but less were under acetylsalicylic acid ± clopidogrel (36.9% vs. 33.9%). Carlson Comorbidity Index was higher nowadays (5.6 ± 6.4 vs. 3.4 ± 2.3). Moreover, a peptic ulcer was less frequently found as the cause of bleeding (38.4% vs. 56.9%), while more often nowadays endoscopy was negative (12.7% vs. 3.5%). In patients with peptic ulcer, active bleeding on endoscopy was less frequent (7.1% vs. 14.2%). Also, bleeding spots requiring hemostasis were less common on endoscopy (39.6% vs. 49.4%) and more patients were without spots of recent bleeding (49.4% vs. 38.9%). Finally, the rate of rebleeding statistically decreased (7.8% vs. 4.2%), while overall mortality remained relatively unchanged (5.0% vs. 6.2%). Conclusions: AUGIB episodes nowadays are less severe with less peptic ulcer bleeding, but the patients are older and with more comorbidities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".