A delayed onset of bowel activity after the start of conventional polyethylene glycol predicts inadequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy: A prospective observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of factors correlating with the quality of bowel preparation (QBP) is critical to ensure high-quality colonoscopy. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether the time interval between the start of conventional polyethylene glycol (PEG) ingestion and the onset of bowel activity is predictive of QBP. METHODS: Consecutive adult outpatients attending colonoscopy were prospectively assessed. Data including demographics, medical history, time of starting/completion of PEG and time when bowel activity started were recorded. The QBP was assessed according to the Ottawa bowel preparation score (OBPS); inadequate QBP was OBPS ≥7. RESULTS: A total of 171 patients (92 males, mean age: 60.5 years) complying with preparation instructions were included. The median OBPS was 5 (range: 1-13) and 57 (33.3%) had inadequate QBP. The median interval between the initiation of PEG and the onset of bowel activity was 60 min (range: 9-300 min). Patients (n = 52, 30.4%) with a delayed (>90 min) onset of bowel activity had poorer QBP (p = 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, male gender (OR: 2.38, p = 0.03), the interval between the end of preparation and the start of colonoscopy (OR: 1.94, p = 0.02) and time to onset of bowel activity >90 min (OR: 3.38, p = 0.004) were predictive of inadequate QBP. CONCLUSION: The time interval between the initiation of PEG ingestion and the onset of bowel activity is predictive of the QBP. Our data support "on demand" intensification of bowel preparation in patients with a delayed onset of purgative response to PEG.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".