Screening Indication Associated With Lower Likelihood of Minor Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Outpatient Colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to determine, among outpatients at one university hospital endoscopy center, rates of self-reported minor adverse events (MAEs) at 2, 14, and 30 days postcolonoscopy and to identify predictors of MAEs at Day 2 postcolonoscopy. A single-center longitudinal cohort study with follow-ups at Days 2, 14, and 30 postcolonoscopy was conducted in Montreal, Canada. Baseline self-report data included patient age, gender, gastrointestinal discomforts and other discomforts in the preceding month, and comorbidity. Intracolonoscopy procedures and the method of insufflation were obtained from endoscopy reports. Minor adverse event data were obtained by either phone or Internet survey. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of MAEs at Day 2. Of 705 individuals approached, 420 (mean age = 58.7 years; SD = 8.4, 45.7% female) were eligible and consented to study participation, and 378 (90%) participated in at least one follow-up. At Days 2, 14, and 30, 86 (25.1%), 46 (13.7%), and 13 (3.1%) patients, respectively, experienced at least one MAE. At the Day 30 follow-up, 2 (0.53%) patients reported having experienced a serious adverse event. The multivariable analysis results showed that screening compared with nonscreening colonoscopy was protective for MAEs at 2 days (OR = 0.5, 95% CI [0.3, 0.9]). We found that 25% of patients experienced at least one MAE at 2 days postcolonoscopy, and screening compared with nonscreening colonoscopy patients were half as likely to experience these early MAEs. Nurses may use these findings to educate and reassure patients about colonoscopy risks. Large, longitudinal multicenter studies are needed to corroborate our findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".