Association between bowel habits and quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of colonoscopy is highly dependent on the quality of bowel preparation. Although many studies have previously evaluated the role of cleansing methods and dosing regimens, few have examined the association between bowel habits and subsequent bowel preparation. Here, we aimed to evaluate the impact of bowel habits on the quality of bowel preparation.A total of 404 patients who underwent a total colonoscopy and completed a personal bowel habit questionnaire at Korea University Hospital between December 2012 and December 2013 were enrolled. The usual stool form of patients was classified into 7 categories according to the Bristol Stool Scale (BSS). The quality of bowel preparation was determined during colonoscopy according to the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS). Segment scores of ≥3 or total OBPS scores of >7 were defined as poor bowel preparation.Poor bowel preparation was reported in 9.4% of observed colonoscopies. The odds ratio (OR) of poor bowel preparation being associated with infrequent bowel movements (<3/week) was 5.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.91-13.1, P = .001). BSS types 1 and 2 tended to have an association with poor bowel preparation, but the association was statistically insignificant (OR: 2.38; 95% CI, 0.90-6.33, P = .082). After adjusting for age, sex, drinking, presence of diabetes mellitus, and bowel preparation regimen, infrequent bowel movement (<3/week) was still significantly associated with poor bowel preparation. When subdividing by colonic segment, it was significantly associated with poor bowel preparation in all segments.Infrequent bowel movement (<3/week) was significantly associated with poor bowel 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".