White Diet with split‐dose Picosalax is preferred, better tolerated, and non‐inferior to day‐before clear fluids with polyethylene glycol plus sodium picosulfate‐magnesium citrate for morning colonoscopy: A randomized, non‐inferiority trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim Bowel preparations with polyethylene glycol (PEG) and clear fluids are often poorly tolerated. We compared an innovative low‐residue White Diet and low‐volume, split‐dose Picosalax with the standard preparation at our institution of day‐before clear fluids and combination PEG plus sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC). Methods Adults undergoing morning colonoscopy were randomized to either the White Diet and split‐dose, two sachets of Picosalax (WD/PICO) or day‐before clear fluids and 1‐L PEG plus two sachets of SPMC (CF/PEG + SPMC). The primary endpoint was successful bowel preparation defined by an Ottawa bowel preparation score ≤ 6. An intention‐to‐treat analysis with a predefined non‐inferiority margin of 15% was used to compare efficacy. Results A total of 250 patients were randomized (125 WD/PICO and 125 CF/PEG + SPMC). WD/PICO was non‐inferior to CF/PEG + SPMC for successful bowel preparation by intention‐to‐treat analysis (58% WD/PICO vs 62% CF/PEG + SPMC, 95%CI: −14.2 to 6.2%) and per‐protocol analysis (64% WD/PICO vs 65% CF/PEG + SPMC, 95%CI: −11.3 to 9.4%). Patients in the WD/PICO group reported greater satisfaction with the diet (P < 0.001), greater ease of following the diet (P < 0.001), and improved experience compared with prior colonoscopy (P < 0.0001), less bloating (P = 0.02), less weakness (P = 0.046), less hunger (P < 0.0001), and less interference with daily activities (P = 0.001). Procedure/withdrawal times and adenoma detection rates were similar between groups. Conclusion Bowel preparation with the White Diet and low‐volume, split‐dose Picosalax was preferred and better tolerated without detriment to bowel preparation success compared with clear fluids and combination PEG plus SPMC for morning colonoscopy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".