ACUTE VARICEAL BLEED IN CIRRHOTIC PATIENTS: FACTORS INFLUENCING CLINICAL OUTCOME
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify the clinical outcome and contributing factors of acute variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic individuals. Study Design: Retrospective study Place and Duration: The study was conducted by collecting data from medicine departments of different hospitals during the period from July 2022 to June 2023. Methods: Total 215 patients with variceal bleed were presented in this study. Based on laboratory, clinical and imaging results, cirrhosis was diagnosed. The Baveno III consensus report was used to identify acute variceal haemorrhage, inability to control bleeding, and rebleeding. Rate of mortality related to uncontrolled bleeding was assessed. Results: There were 142 (66.04%) males and 73 (33.95%) females among all cases. 37 (17.2%) cases had age 18-30 years, 72 (33.5%) had age 31-40 years, 55 (25.6% ) patients had age 41-50 years and 51 (23.7%) cases had age >50 years. We found failure to control bleed in 27 (12.5%), re-bleeding in 31 (14.4%) cases. Diabetes was found in 88 (40.9%) cases. There were 58 instances (26.04%) of hepatocellular carcinoma and 35 cases (16.3%) of portal vein thrombosis (PVT). The presence of diabetes mellitus and active bleeding at the time of endoscopy were predictors of failure to control bleed, while the presence of diabetes mellitus and serum bilirubin >3 mg/dL were predictors of in-hospital re-bleed. Mortality was found in 19 (8.8%) cases. Conclusion: The presence of diabetes mellitus, active bleeding during endoscopy, and bilirubin levels that are greater than 3 mg/dL were revealed to be negative prognostic markers for initial control of variceal haemorrhage as well as recurrent bleed in patients with cirrhosis.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".