An Assessment of Endoscopic and Concomitant Management of Acute Variceal Bleeding at a Tertiary Care Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several therapies have been demonstrated to be beneficial in the management of acute variceal bleeding (AVB). The aim of the present study was to characterize the use of these therapies at a Canadian tertiary care centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A comprehensive chart review was performed to assess the management of all adult cirrhotic patients with AVB who were admitted to a university-affiliated, tertiary care centre between April 2001 and March 2004. RESULTS: A total of 81 AVB patients were identified with a mean age of 53.7+/-13.2 years and a median model for end-stage liver disease score of 14. Endoscopy was performed within 8.2+/-7.6 h of admission. Variceal banding was performed for 87% of patients with esophageal varices, which were the most common source of bleeding (80%). Octreotide was used in 82% of patients for a mean duration of 74.3+/-35.4 h; prophylactic antibiotics were used in 25% of patients and beta-blockers were used in 24% of patients without any contraindications. Follow-up endoscopy was arranged for 46 of 71 (65%) survivors. Prophylactic antibiotic use was associated with the presence of ascites, while beta-blockers were used more often in the last year of the study. CONCLUSIONS: There is a disconnection between the use of evidence-based recommendations and routine clinical practices in the management of AVB. Deficiencies identified include the lack of use of prophylactic antibiotics and beta-blockers, variable use of octreotide and inadequate follow-up recommendations. There is a need to identify measures to improve the process of care for patients with AVB which would ensure optimal management of these patients.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".