ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
A Novel Prediction Tool for Endoscopic Intervention in Patients with Acute Upper Gastro-Intestinal Bleeding.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a machine learning model to predict hemostatic intervention in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Construction of a predictive model for rebleeding risk in upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients based on clinical indicators such asFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Risk stratification and scoring systems in upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding: review of performance and limitations in the emergency department.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Predicting mortality in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding using machine-learning.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Predicting which patients with upper gastro-intestinal bleeding (UGIB) will receive intervention during urgent endoscopy can allow for better triaging and resource utilization but remains sub-optimal. Using machine learning modelling we aimed to devise an improved endoscopic intervention predicting tool. (2) Methods: A retrospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with UGIB between 2012−2018 who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) during hospitalization. We assessed the correlation between various parameters with endoscopic intervention and examined the prediction performance of the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) and the pre-endoscopic Rockall score for endoscopic intervention. We also trained and tested a new machine learning-based model for the prediction of endoscopic intervention. (3) Results: A total of 883 patients were included. Risk factors for endoscopic intervention included cirrhosis (9.0% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.01), syncope at presentation (19.3% vs. 5.4%, p < 0.01), early EGD (6.8 h vs. 17.0 h, p < 0.01), pre-endoscopic administration of tranexamic acid (TXA) (43.4% vs. 31.0%, p < 0.01) and erythromycin (17.2% vs. 5.6%, p < 0.01). Higher GBS (11 vs. 9, p < 0.01) and pre-endoscopy Rockall score (4.7 vs. 4.1, p < 0.01) were significantly associated with endoscopic intervention; however, the predictive performance of the scores was low (AUC of 0.54, and 0.56, respectively). A combined machine learning-developed model demonstrated improved predictive ability (AUC 0.68) using parameters not included in standard GBS. (4) Conclusions: The GBS and pre-endoscopic Rockall score performed poorly in endoscopic intervention prediction. An improved predictive tool has been proposed here. Further studies are needed to examine if predicting this important triaging decision can be further optimized.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.