A randomized, endoscopist-blinded, prospective trial to compare the preference and efficacy of four bowel-cleansing regimens for colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The superiority of conventional polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution over sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) for bowel preparation remains controversial. Therefore, this study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of different regimens of SPMC and PEG solution in Koreans, who consume a traditional high-fiber diet. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 200 outpatients undergoing elective colonoscopy were randomized into four groups receiving different bowel-preparation regimens in a prospective study: 4 L PEG in the morning on the day of colonoscopy, two 2 L split doses of PEG, split doses of 2 SPMC sachets, and split doses of 3 SPMC sachets. Bowel cleansing efficacy was assessed based on the Ottawa bowel preparation scale and the Aronchick scale by endoscopists blinded to treatment, and patients filled out a questionnaire to determine satisfaction. RESULTS: There was no difference among groups with respect to bowel cleansing grade (Ottawa scale, p = 0.314). Patients in the SPMC groups were less likely to have abdominal fullness, pain, nausea, or vomiting than patients in the PEG groups (p < 0.05). Patients reported SPMC was more palatable than PEG. There were no significant differences among groups with respect to polyp detection rate. CONCLUSION: SPMC is as effective as conventional high-volume PEG-electrolyte solution in Korean patients. SPMC groups reported superior palatability and tolerability compared to PEG groups.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".