MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326717073 · doi:10.1056/nejm-jw.na34158

Boston Bowel Preparation Scale Predicts Adequate Cleansing

2014· article· en· W2326717073 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Douglas K. Rex

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal watch · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBowel preparationMedicineTask forceScale (ratio)GastroenterologyInternal medicineColorectal cancerColonoscopyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer recommends that a bowel preparation be considered adequate if the colonoscopist is able to identify polyps ≥6 mm in size everywhere in the colon. This is not a validated bowel preparation score but rather an operational definition for when the preparation is good enough for the operator to recommend the screening or surveillance interval appropriate to the findings. Unfortunately, none of the three validated bowel preparation scales (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS], Ottawa, and Aronchick) has a score that clearly corresponds with adequate cleansing. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal watchSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207