A Low-Residue Breakfast Improves Patient Tolerance Without Impacting Quality of Low-Volume Colon Cleansing Prior to Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We compared the efficacy and patient tolerance of two dietary regimens used as an adjunct to standard bowel cleansing in preparation for elective colonoscopy. METHODS: Our prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled, noninferiority trial compared two dietary regimens administered the day before colonoscopy. Subjects received low-volume bowel preparation. The primary outcome was efficacy of colon cleansing, rated by the Ottawa bowel preparation scale (OBPS). Patient acceptance of the assigned dietary regimen was assessed as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: The mean OBPS score for the standard clear-fluid diet group was 4.47, compared with 4.62 for the low-residue breakfast group, meeting criteria for noninferiority. The groups reported similar mean intensity of hunger on a visual analog hunger scale. However, overall satisfaction was higher with the low-residue diet than with the clear-fluid diet. CONCLUSIONS: A low-residue breakfast on the day before elective colonoscopy does not compromise the overall quality of bowel preparation as compared with a standard clear-fluid diet and is likely to be preferred by patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".