Risk factors associated with gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cardiovascular disease (INTERBLEED): a case control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aimed to identify and quantify the importance of risk factors for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in patients with CV disease. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study in 9 countries in Asia, America, Europe, and Australia. Cases were patients with CV disease with GI bleeding. Controls were patients with CV without a history of GI bleeding. All participants completed a baseline standardized assessment. We calculated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and average population attributable fractions (aPAFs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Between September 2015 and December 2022, we enrolled 2,519 cases and 2,202 controls. Independent risk factors for GI bleeding were age (age 71+: OR 4.16, 95% CI 3.48-4.97; age 61-70: OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.39-2.04; age ≤60 as reference), underweight (OR 3.38, 95% CI 2.24-5.10; aPAF 1.6%, 95% CI 1.0-2.0%), current smoker (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.09-1.58; aPAF 1.5%, 95% CI 0.6-2.5); chronic kidney disease (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.62-2.14; aPAF 8.8%, 95% CI 7.0-9.6%), prior stroke (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.30-1.88, aPAF 2.6%, 95% CI 1.2-4.0%), glucocorticoids (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.34-2.16, aPAF 1.8%, 95% CI 1.3-2.9%), NSAIDs or COX-2 inhibitors (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.45-2.29; aPAF 2.2%, 95% CI 1.3-3.0%), liver disease (OR 3.68, 95% CI 2.77-4.89; aPAF 3.5%, 95% CI 2.8-4.2%), peptic ulcer disease (OR 3.38, 95% CI 2.66-4.31; aPAF 4.8%, 95% CI 3.8-5.7%), diverticular disease (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.46-2.24; aPAF 2.8%, 1.9-3.6%) and antithrombotic therapy within 6 months (aPAF 7.6%, 95% CI 4.3-12.8%). Overall aPAF adjusted for age, sex and region was 37.3% (95% CI 33.0-42.2%). CONCLUSION: Potentially modifiable risk factors are associated with only about one third of the aPAF for GI bleeding.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".