Comparison of split-dosing<i>vs</i>non-split (morning) dosing regimen for assessment of quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare (using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale) the efficacy of split-dose vs morning administration of polyethylene glycol solution for colon cleansing in patients undergoing colonoscopy, and to assess the optimal preparation-to-colonoscopy interval. METHODS: Single-centre, prospective, randomized, investigator-blind stud in an academic tertiary-care centre. Two hundred patients requiring elective colonoscopy were assigned to receive one of the two preparation regimens (split vs morning) prior to colonoscopy. Main outcome measurements were bowel preparation quality and patient tolerability. RESULTS: Split-dose regimen resulted in better bowel preparation compared to morning regimen [Ottawa score mean 5.52 (SD 1.23) vs 6.02 (1.34); P = 0.017]. On subgroup analysis, for afternoon procedures, both the preparations were equally effective (P = 0.756). There was no difference in tolerability and compliance between the two regimens. CONCLUSION: Overall, previous evening - same morning split-dosing regimen results in better bowel cleansing for colonoscopy compared to morning preparation. For afternoon procedures, both schedules are equally effective; morning preparation may be more convenient to the patient.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it