Effect of Combination Pretreatment of Polyethylene Glycol Solution and Magnesium Hydroxide for Colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study was designed to compare the efficacy and patient tolerance between standard bowel preparation using 4 liters of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution and 4 liters of PEG preceded by the osmotic laxative, magnesium hydroxide in constipation and non-constipation group. METHODS: 173 outpatient colonoscopy, except for three patients who were not taking magnesium, were divided into constipation and non-constipation group. Then, the patients were randomly assigned to receive 4-liter of PEG solution or 4-liter of PEG plus magnesium hydroxide. The quality of bowel preparation was assessed using Ottawa scale, and satisfaction score was assessed using questionnaires. Solid stool, cecal intubation time, compliance, and side effects were assessed. RESULTS: Non-constipation group showed no significant differences between two groups. In constipation group, 4-liter PEG solution plus magnesium hydroxide induced the more effective colonic preparation (Ottawa scale 2.47+/-0.99 vs. 5.92+/-2.39, p<0.05), and less solid stool (0.67+/-0.72 vs. 1.38+/-0.65, p<0.05) compared with 4-liter PEG solution. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel preparation with magnesium hydroxide and 4 liters of PEG solution might reduce solid stool in constipation group, but could not improve preparation 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".