Adding stewed apricot juice to sena improves the right-side and overall colon cleansing quality for colonoscopy preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To achieve optimal colonoscopic examination, the bowel must be sufficiently cleansed. However, none of the currently available colonoscopy preparation regimens is safe, efficient and comfortable. The aim of this study was to determine whether adding stewed apricot juice to senna increased patient comfort and improved bowel cleansing during colonoscopy preparation.Methods: Outpatients of both genders, aged over 18 years, who were referred for elective colonoscopy were randomly allocated to drink stewed apricot juice with senna or senna alone. The quality of colon cleansing was evaluated using the Ottawa scale. The evaluation of patient tolerance and adverse events was made through completion of a questionnaire. Results: The study included a total of 128 patients in the randomization procedure. A significantly greater effect of cleansing was determined with stewed apricot juice plus senna in the right and transverse colon (p= 0.038, p=0.037, respectively). It was also determined that in the stewed apricot juice plus senna group, overall cleansing was superior (p<0.001), total colonoscopy (17.6 min vs 22.8 min, p=0.048) and cecal intubation (7.4 min vs 11.2 min, p=0.042) times were shorter, and the colonoscopy procedure was easier (79.4%vs 49.2%, p<0.001). No difference was determined between the groups in respect of patient acceptance, compliance and adverse events (p>0.05). In the stewed apricot juice plus senna group, 91.2% of patients stated willingness to receive the same regimen in the future compared with 80% of the patients in thesenna alone group (p=0.037).Conclusion: The addition of natural, stewed apricot juice to senna significantly improves cleansing outcomes without additional adverse events.Keywords: bowel cleansing, colonoscopy, stewed apricot juice, senna.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".