Scheduling rules for patients with diabetes mellitus that facilitate split-dosing improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: An adequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy is best achieved by giving the cleansing regimen as a split-dose with the second dose given 4-6 hours before the procedure. This can be difficult to administer to diabetics who are preferentially scheduled for early morning procedures. We examined the impact on bowel preparation quality of scheduling diabetics for mid-morning (9:30 am or later) procedures rather than early morning procedures (7:30-9:00 AM) to facilitate a split-dose preparation. METHODS: Historical cohort study of 34,415 patients (1,805 diabetics) age 18-74 years without significant comorbidities who underwent an outpatient colorectal cancer screening-related colonoscopy either before (2013) or after (2014) a unit wide change in scheduling practices for diabetics. The primary outcome was the rate of inadequate bowel preparation. Secondary outcomes include the rate of procedures complete to the cecum, procedure duration and detection rates of polyps, any colorectal cancer screening-relevant lesion (adenoma, sessile serrated adenoma, large proximal hyperplastic polyp) and advanced adenomas. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2014, the proportion of diabetics with an inadequate bowel preparation decreased from 7.7% to 3.2% (95% confidence interval for the difference 2.2%-6.8%, P<0.00005). There was no significant change in the proportion of non-diabetics with inadequate preparation (2% in both years). There was no change in secondary outcomes in diabetics from 2013 to 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Preferentially scheduling diabetic patients later in the morning that more conveniently allowed for a split dose bowel preparation resulted in decreased rates of inadequate bowel preparation without disadvantaging other patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".