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
Purpose: This study was a randomized single-blind trial of whole versus split-dose PEG solutions for colonoscopy preparation to compare the patient compliance, quality of bowel cleansing, and endoscopist's satisfaction. Methods: The participants were recruited from outpatients who planned to receive colonoscopy of C hospital in Busan. Sixty participants were randomly assigned to receive either a spit-dose group(n=30) consuming 2l of PEG solution twice, or a whole-dose group(n=30), consuming 4l of PEG solution once. These participants completed the questionnaire to assess their compliance before colonoscopy. The quality of bowel cleansing was assessed using the Ottawa Scale with the endoscopist who was blinded to the type of preparation, and their satisfaction by using VAS. Results: The participants who did not completely consume 4l of PEG solution were less in split-dose than in whole-dose group (0% vs 13.3%). The split-dose group complained less about abdominal pain(t=2.644, p=0.009) and abdominal bloating(t=2.802, p=0.013) with a statistical significance. For the quality of bowel preparation, there were no significant differences in the bowel cleansing scores and the endoscopist’s satisfaction between two groups. Conclusion: Colonic preparation with split-dose of PEG solution could be a more useful method for better patient compliance, with no significant impact on bowel cleansing quality.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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