Combined Low-Volume Polyethylene Glycol Solution Plus Stimulant Laxatives versus Standard-Volume Polyethylene Glycol Solution: A Prospective, Randomized Study of Colon Cleansing before Colonoscopy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of polyethylene glycol solutions (PEG) for colon cleansing is often limited by the inability of patients to drink adequate portions of the 4 L solution. The aim of the present study was to determine whether a reduced volume of PEG combined with stimulant laxatives would be better tolerated and as or more effective than the standard dose. METHODS: Patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive either low-volume PEG plus sennosides (120 mg oral sennosides syrup followed by 2 L PEG) or the standard volume preparation (4 L PEG). The subjects rated the tolerability of the preparations and their symptoms. Colonoscopists were blind to the colonic cleansing preparation and graded the cleansing efficacy using a validated tool (the Ottawa scale). RESULTS: The low-volume PEG plus sennosides preparation was significantly better tolerated than the standard large volume PEG (P<0.001) but was less efficacious (P=0.03). Thirty-eight per cent of patients in the large volume PEG group were unable to finish the preparation, compared with only 6% in the reduced volume group. There were no adverse events reported. CONCLUSIONS: Although the low-volume PEG plus sennosides preparation was better tolerated, it was not as effective as standard large-volume PEG. However, in view of the significant difference in tolerance, further research investigating possible improvements in the reduced-volume regimen seems warranted.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it