Comparision of Single Versus Split-dose of Polyethylene Glycol-electrolyte Solution for Colonoscopy Preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims: Although polyethethylene glycol (PEG) solution is widely used for bowel preparation, it is difficult to drink a large amount of fluid in a short period of time. We compared the quality of bowel preparation and compliance between the single-dose group and split-dose group. Methods: Two hundred seventeen patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive either 4 litre (L) of PEG solution (n=104, single dose group) on the day of colonoscopy or 2 L of PEG solution on the day before colonoscopy and then 2 L of same solution on the day of colonoscopy (n=113, split dose group). The quality of bowel preparation was assessed using Ottawa scale. Cecal intubation time, compliance and side effects were assessed. Results: Split-dose group showed the better quality of bowel preparation than single- dose group (4.752.45 vs 5.522.24, p＜0.05) because of lower residual volume scale. Patients who experienced very difficulty during ingestion (0.95% vs 5.8%) and left out more than 25% of PEG solution (3.5% vs 8.7%) were greater in single-dose group. There was no difference of side effects between two groups. Conclusions: Split-dose PEG preparation could be the useful method in than single-dose in colonoscopy preparation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".