Morning-only Polyethylene Glycol Is Noninferior but Less Preferred by Hospitalized Patients as Compared With Split-dose Bowel Preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOALS: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of morning-only polyethylene glycol (PEG) with split-dose preparation in hospitalized patients scheduled for colonoscopy. BACKGROUND: Morning-only colonoscopy preparation may improve efficiency by allowing patient preparation and colonoscopy to be performed on the same day. There are limited data comparing morning-only with split-dose preparation, and more studies are needed before morning-only preparation can be routinely recommended. STUDY: A single-center, prospective, endoscopist-blinded study was conducted, in which hospitalized patients scheduled to undergo diagnostic colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive 4 L of PEG either on the morning of colonoscopy or as a split-dose (evening-morning). The primary endpoint was efficacy of bowel preparation measured by the Ottawa scale. Secondary endpoints were patient compliance and tolerance. RESULTS: A total of 120 hospitalized patients scheduled for diagnostic colonoscopy were randomized. The mean total Ottawa score was slightly superior for the morning-only arm, and the upper bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference between arms was less than our prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.5 (difference=-0.23; 95% CI, -1.72 to 1.25). The percentage of patients with good bowel preparation was similar for all colonic segments. There was a trend toward more side effects among patients in the morning-only compared with the split-dose arm (71% vs. 54%; P=0.08). Compared with morning-only preparation, more patients in the split-dose arm were willing to undergo similar preparation for future colonoscopies (71% vs. 89%; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Morning-only PEG is not inferior to split-dose preparation regarding bowel cleansing efficacy for colonoscopy in hospitalized patients. However, split-dose preparation was preferred by patients because of less side effects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".