Upper digestive bleeding and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antecedentes: No se ha determinado si la hemorragia digestiva aumenta la mortalidad en pacientes con COVID-19, pero se teme que el uso de anticoagulantes profilácticos afecte negativamente a estos sangrados y haya una mayor exposición al contagio al realizar endoscopías. Objetivo: Determinar la mortalidad de los pacientes con COVID-19 y hemorragia digestiva y comparar el efecto del manejo endoscópico con el del tratamiento conservador. Métodos y Materiales: Se realizó una revisión sistemática según PRISMA de las bases de datos de PubMed, Ovid, Clinical Key y Cochrane. Se incluyeron pacientes hospitalizados con COVID-19, no gestantes, mayores de 18 años con y sin hemorragia digestiva, de estudios publicados entre el 01 de enero de 2020 y el 30 de abril de 2021. La calidad de los artículos fue evaluada con las escalas de Newcastle-Ottawa y de National Institutes of Health. Se usó Review Manager 5.4.1 de Cochrane para el metaanálisis. Resultados: Se encontró un OR 2,7 significativo para la mortalidad de pacientes COVID-19 expuestos a hemorragia digestiva (IC 95% [1,77-4,13], I2 = 20%, y p < 0,00001) y un OR 2,04 significativo en el subanálisis de casos y controles (IC 95% [1,23-3,38], p = 0,006 e I2 = 0%). Los resultados son cuestionables debido a los valores y pesos de cada estudio. Conclusión: No hay evidencia suficiente para asegurar que los pacientes con COVID-19 y hemorragia digestiva tengan una mortalidad mayor que aquellos sin sangrado. Parece haber una buena respuesta al manejo conservador.
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 | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".