A Comparison of 2 L of Polyethylene Glycol and 45 mL of Sodium Phosphate versus 4 L of Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Cleansing: A Prospective Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based gut lavage solutions are safe and effective, but require the intake of large volumes of fluid. The use of 2 L PEG plus 45 mL sodium phosphate (PEG2 plus NaP) was compared with 4 L PEG (PEG4) for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. METHODS: Patients were randomized to the PEG2 plus NaP group or PEG4 group between January 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010. One hundred and thirty patients were included in the PEG2 plus NaP group, and 141 patients in the PEG4 group. RESULTS: The qualities of the bowel preparation, based on the Ottawa scale were not significantly different between the groups (4.8±2.25 for the PEG2 plus NaP group vs. 5.11±2.26 for the PEG4). In addition, there were no significant differences in side effects. Laboratory findings after bowel preparation, including electrolyte, phosphorus and creatinine levels, were within the normal ranges in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: PEG2 plus NaP provides good cleansing that is similar to PEG4, but with a lower volume. However, because PEG2 plus NaP can cause serious side effects such as calcium deposition in the kidneys (i.e., nephrocalcinosis), this solution might be considered for the outpatients who cannot tolerate PEG4.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".