MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391874069 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwad061.090

A90 ASSESSING 30-DAY MORTALITY IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING EMERGENT ADD-ON ENDOSCOPIC GI PROCEDURES

2024· article· en· W4391874069 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Katherine Healey, Mark Borgaonkar, Jerry McGrath

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures may need to be performed emergently on hospitalized patients. Current short-term mortality rates following emergent GI endoscopic procedures are attributed to their indication and vary by geographic area, ranging from 1.89% to as high as 10%. Recent studies describing clinical outcomes and mortality of non-scheduled GI endoscopic procedures are limited. Aims This study aimed to describe the 30-day mortality and clinical outcomes of patients who received endoscopic intervention as an add on, non-scheduled procedure over a 2-month period across 2 tertiary hospitals, in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the charts for all patients between July 1, 2021, and August 31, 2021, who received an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG) across 2 tertiary hospitals in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. Endoscopic procedures on hospitalized patients that were added to the emergency endoscopy list were included. Procedures were done during working hours on weekdays or outside working hours at night-time, and during the weekend. Data on demographics, endoscopic findings, treatment outcomes, and 30-day mortality, were collected through electronic chart review. Descriptive statistics were conducted for data analysis. Results Of the 258 add on procedures performed on 213 patients, 17 patients (8.0%) died within 30 days of having had the procedure. The most frequently performed procedure was EGD, and the mortality associated with it was 9.4% (12/127), followed by sigmoidoscopy (1/29, 3.4%), colonoscopy (0/18, 0%), PEG (3/9; 33.3%). One patient who died had both EGD and colonoscopy (1/25, 4%). No patients died from both EGD and sigmoidoscopy (0/5, 0%). The median time between the procedure and death was 15 days. The median age was 72 years old. Most patients received endoscopic intervention for suspected bleeding. The major causes of death were cardiac, GI, malignancy, respiratory, and other. Conclusions Hospitalized patients are a distinct cohort with competing risks that need to be considered when planning endoscopic procedures. Further investigation is necessary with a larger patient cohort over multiple years. Funding Agencies Summer Undergraduate Research Award (Memorial University of Newfoundland)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies→French-language works237,207→