Quality and effect of single dose versus split dose of polyethylene glycol bowel preparation for early-morning colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The conventional procedure of ingestion of an entire dose of polyethylene glycol solution on the day before early-morning colonoscopy may result in poor bowel preparation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and effect of a split-dose ingestion of polyethylene glycol for early-morning colonoscopy. METHODS: A total of 303 age- and sex-matched consecutive individuals presenting for medical check-ups were randomly assigned to receive either 4 L of polyethylene glycol solution with a soft diet on the day before colonoscopy (n = 152; group A), or 3 L of polyethylene glycol solution with a soft diet on the preceding day and then 1 L of the solution on the day of colonoscopy (n = 151; group B). The quality of bowel preparation was evaluated using the Ottawa scale, and the time to cecal intubation and the technical difficulty during the procedure were also recorded. RESULTS: There was no difference in compliance between group A (single-dose) and group B (split-dose). The quality of bowel preparation was better in group B compared with group A. When the participants were categorized according to compliance (good compliance, 116 in group A, 119 in group B; poor compliance, 36 in group A, 32 in group B), the quality of the bowel preparation had a higher score in the good compliance compared with the poor compliance group, and in group B this difference was usually significant. CONCLUSIONS: Split-dose bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol solution provided a better quality preparation than the conventional method for patients undergoing early-morning colonoscopy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".