All-cause mortality after major gastrointestinal bleeding among patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding represents the single most frequent site of anticoagulant-related bleeding. Adverse outcomes after major GI bleeding including mortality are not well characterized and, as a result, may be underappreciated in clinical practice. We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk for 30-day all-cause mortality after major GI bleeding among patients receiving DOACs. METHODS: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL will be systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective cohort studies reporting 30-day all-cause mortality in adults with DOAC-related major GI bleeding. At least two investigators will independently perform study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. The proportion of deaths following a major GI event relative to the number of major GI bleeding events will be calculated for each individual study, and results across studies will be pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. We will assess risk of bias using criteria proposed by the GRADE group for prognostic studies. DISCUSSION: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis will provide clinicians and patients with estimates of mortality after the most common major bleeding event to support shared decision making about anticoagulation management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022295815.
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 | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.039 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".