A Comparison between the Impacts of Continuous and Intermittent Intravenous Pantoprazole Injection on High Risk Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Objective: Although higher age was previously associated with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), rebleeding due to low PH has been recently considered as a crucial prognosis factor.In this regard, pantoprazole, a Proton pump inhibitor (PPIs), along with endoscopy was applied in high-risk patients.As it is an undeniably momentous approach to discover the best PPIs injection method, the advantages and disadvantages of continuous and intermittent PPIs' infusion were compared in high-risk UGIBs patients. Materials & Methods:Eighty selected patients were randomly divided into two equal groups.In the continuous infusion, there were 6 and 34 patients with adherent clot ulcers and visible vessel ulcers without bleeding; however, 2 and 38 patients with these ulcers were present in the intermittent infusion group in turn.After three days, ulcers, packed cells, and surgery needs were evaluated between the two groups.Results: After 72 hours of treatment, 29, 3 and 8 patients in the continuous group showed clean base, flat pigmented spot, and visible vessel ulcer with bleeding, respectively.Whereas in the intermittent group, these records were 35, 5 and 0, respectively (p≤0.028).The number of patients in the continuous infusion group with a visible vessel ulcer was significantly higher (p>0.028).A significant difference was also observed between the groups in terms of length of hospitalizations (p≤0.001) with no mortality. Conclusion:Based on the findings, the intermittent infusion of PPIs is obviously superior over continuous mode.However, further studies with a larger population are recommended to discover the merits and drawbacks of this method in high-risk UGIBs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".