Efficacy of prepackaged, low residual test meals with 4L polyethylene glycol versus a clear liquid diet with 4L polyethylene glycol bowel preparation: A randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: A prepackaged low residue one-day diet (breakfast, lunch and dinner) has been recently developed to improve patient tolerance for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. The aims of this study were to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of bowel preparation protocols based on a low residue diet and 4L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution, and to compare these new options with the traditional liquid diet and the PEG 4L lavage. METHODS: A total of 214 patients (mean age: 54.1 years; 120 male, 94 female) from four university hospitals were included in the analysis. Patients were randomized to receive a clear liquid diet and the PEG 4L regimen (106 patients) or the low residue test meals and the PEG 4L regimen (TM-PEG 4L, 108 patients). The colon cleansing efficacy of the different preparations was rated using the Ottawa bowel preparation scale. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the treatment groups according to the Ottawa cleansing scale findings (PEG 4L: 2.97 vs TM-PEG 4L: 2.46, P = 0.063). The overall tolerability was higher in the TM-PEG 4L group than in the PEG 4L group (P = 0.036). No difference was found when the two groups were compared with regard to adverse events (P = 0.599). CONCLUSIONS: A prepackaged low residue one-day diet provided cleansing efficacy similar to that of a clear liquid diet and offered the benefit of improved tolerability compared to the conventional PEG 4L regimen.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".