Impact of Educational Cartoon on Pediatric Bowel Preparation Quality at Time of Colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if addition of educational cartoon to pediatric bowel preparation instructions improves the quality of bowel preparation and patient experience. METHODS: Patients were randomized to control group receiving standard bowel preparation instructions or intervention group receiving additional educational cartoon. To objectively rate bowel preparation, a blinded endoscopist completed numeric Ottawa score (0-14, with 0 being best). The family also completed a questionnaire rating the bowel preparation process. RESULTS: Data from 23 patients were analyzed. Mean Ottawa score in the intervention group compared with controls was not significantly different (mean scores 3.73 and 3.33, respectively; P = .384). Level of education was significantly correlated with better Ottawa score in the overall population (ρ = -.462, P = .026) and within the control group (ρ = -.658, P = .02). Both groups of patients reported positive experience with bowel preparation. CONCLUSION: There may be benefit to further investigation of this educational cartoon in parents with less than college level education or non-English-speaking families in larger population of 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".