Mechanical colon cleansing for screening colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Effective screening colonoscopy depends on the quality of colon preparation. This study aimed to compare pulsed irrigation evacuation (PIE), polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium phosphate colon preparations. METHODS: Outpatients at a VA hospital were randomized using sealed envelopes. Preparations consisted of polyethylene glycol 4L, Fleet sodium phosphate 90 mL with four to six glasses water twice daily and 296 mL of magnesium citrate in the evening with PIE prior to colonoscopy. Colon cleansing was assessed blindly using a five-point scale: 0 (very poor) to 4 (excellent). RESULTS: Altogether 391 patients participated in the study (129 in the PEG group, 127 in the sodium phosphate and 135 in the PIE group), with a mean age of 62 years, of whom 75% were men. PIE and sodium phosphate were superior to PEG: median cleansing scored 4 (excellent) versus 3 with PEG (P < 0.01). Inadequate preparations were more common with PEG than PIE (18% vs 5%) (P < 0.01). Side-effects included vomiting: 37% in the sodium phosphate group versus 5% in the PEG and 2% in the PIE groups (P < 0.01). The three preparations were judged intolerable in ≤ 5%. CONCLUSIONS: PIE and sodium phosphate are superior to PEG for colon preparations. PIE is the preferred preparation for those at high risk of unsatisfactory preparations or with unsatisfactory traditional preparations.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".