A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Low-Dose Oral Sodium Phosphate Plus Stimulant Laxatives with Large Volume Polyethylene Glycol Solution for Colon Cleansing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined whether the combination of a single dose (45 ml) oral sodium phosphate (NaP), four bisacodyl tablets (5 mg), and one bisacodyl enema (10 mg) preparation, Fleet Prep Kit 3 (FPK #3), was better tolerated and more efficacious than 4 L polyethylene glycol solution (PEG) for colonic cleansing prior to colonoscopy. One hundred and seventy-one patients were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, single-blinded study designed to detect a 20% or greater difference in patient tolerance and effectiveness in colonic cleansing between the two agents. The single dose of NaP and the bisacodyl tablets were administered at 1900 h and at 2100 h, respectively, the evening prior to colonoscopy and the bisacodyl enema 2 h before the procedure. PEG was consumed over 1-2 h the evening prior to colonoscopy. Most patients (84%) found the FPK #3 easy or tolerable compared to only 33% receiving PEG (p < 0.001). Over 40% could not complete the PEG. There was no detectable difference in the efficacy between the two preparations (p= 0.74). Comparison of biochemical and hemodynamic values obtained before and after colonic cleansing did not reveal any significant differences apart from hyperphosphatemia in a few patients (16%) receiving FPK #3 and minor changes in blood urea nitrogen and chloride. These findings suggest that FPK #3 is better tolerated and as safe as PEG but does not provide more efficacious cleansing of the colon.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".