Comparison of 3% sorbitol<i>vs</i>psyllium fibre as oral contrast agents in MR enterography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the degree of small bowel distension achieved by 3% sorbitol, a high osmolarity solution, and a psyllium-based bulk fibre as oral contrast agents (OCAs) in MR enterography (MRE). METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board. A total of 45 consecutive normal MRE examinations (sorbitol, n = 20; psyllium, n = 25) were reviewed. The patients received either 1.5 l of 3% sorbitol or 2 l of 1.6 g kg(-1) psyllium prior to imaging. Quantitative small bowel distension measurements were taken in five segments: proximal jejunum, distal jejunum, proximal ileum, distal ileum and terminal ileum by two independent radiologists. Distension in these five segments was also qualitatively graded from 0 (very poor) to 4 (excellent) by two additional independent radiologists. Statistical analysis comparing the groups and assessing agreement included intraclass coefficients, Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: Small bowel distension was not significantly different in any of the five small bowel segments between the use of sorbitol and psyllium as OCAs in both the qualitative (p = 0.338-0.908) and quantitative assessments (p = 0.083-0.856). The mean bowel distension achieved was 20.1 ± 2.2 mm for sorbitol and 19.8 ± 2.5 mm for psyllium (p = 0.722). Visualization of the ileum was good or excellent in 65% of the examinations in both groups. CONCLUSION: Sorbitol and psyllium are not significantly different at distending the small bowel and both may be used as OCAs for MRE studies. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first study to directly compare the degree of distension in MRE between these two common, readily available and inexpensive OCAs.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".