Does constipation predict the quality of bowel preparation during colonoscopy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suboptimal bowel preparation has several consequences, including reduced polyp detection rate and increased cost of colorectal cancer screening. The presence of constipation is thought to be a feature associated with poor bowel preparation. OBJECTIVES: To characterise the relationship between features of constipation and the quality of bowel preparation during colonoscopy. DESIGN: Patients presenting for an outpatient colonoscopy were asked to complete a questionnaire which included demographics, type of bowel purgative and features of bowel movements (BMs)-derived from the ROME III criteria for diagnosis of chronic constipation. PATIENTS: 101 patients from the community undergoing surveillance colonoscopy completed the study. INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent standard bowel preparation, completed a pre-endoscopy survey, followed by routine surveillance colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The endoscopist rated the quality of bowel preparation using the previously validated Ottawa scoring scale. Statistical analysis was performed to characterise the relationship between the existence of chronic constipation and quality of bowel preparation. RESULTS: BM frequency of <1/day, 1/day, 2/day, or 3/day was inversely correlated with average total Ottawa score (range 5.93 to 4.00), p=0.028) as well as recto-sigmoid Ottawa score (range 1.8 to 1.0, p=0.006). Among women, there was a statistically significant (p=0.025) association between those who reported hard stools (Ottawa=6.3) and those who denied hard stools (4.5). CONCLUSION: Eliciting features of BMs before colonoscopy may predict those at risk for poor bowel preparations and increase cost effectiveness of colonoscopy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".