A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Divided Dose of Polyethylene Glycol Solution with Stimulant Laxative Plus Low Dose Polyethylene Glycol Solution for Colon Cleansing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims: This study compared the efficacy and patient’s tolerance between those given a divided dose of a polyethylene glycol solution (PEG) and those given a stimulant laxative plus a reduced dose of PEG. Methods: 190 consecutive patients for colon cleasing were randomized into 3 groups. In group A, 2 L of PEG was administered on the evening prior to the colonoscopy followed by 2 L of the same solution on the morning of colonoscopy. In group B, 2 L of PEG was administered in the morning only. In group C, 2 bisacodyl tablets (10 mg) were administered on the evening prior to colonoscopy and 2 L of PEG was administered in the morning. The patients completed a questionnaire to assess their tolerance to the bowel preparation before the colonoscopy. The endoscopists scored the adequacy of the bowel preparation using the Ottawa scale along with their satisfaction with the quality of the procedure. Results: While 4 patients (6.7%) could not completely take the recommended dose in group A, all patients in groups B and C could take the recommended dose (p=0.012). The patients in Group B had a better tolerance and fewer side effects than those in Group A (p=0.01). A higher adequacy of bowel preparation was observed in group A than in group B (p=0.000) and there appeared to be a higher adequacy of bowel preparation in Group C than in Group B (p=0.06). Conclusions: The 2 L PEG solution only does not appear to be as effective as a bowel cleansing agent for colonoscopy compared with the divided 4 L PEG solution. No statistical difference in the side effects and efficacy was observed between the divided 4 L PEG solution and the combination of bisacodyl 10 mg with 2 L of a PEG solution.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 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".