Split-dose menthol-enhanced PEG vs PEG-ascorbic acid for colonoscopy preparation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM:To compare the efficacy and palatability of 4L polyethylene glycol electrolyte(PEG)plus sugar-free menthol candy(PEG+M)vs reduced-volume 2 L ascorbic acid-supplemented PEG(Asc PEG).METHODS:In a randomized controlled trial setting,ambulatory patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled.Patients were randomized to receive either PEG+M or Asc PEG,both splitdosed with minimal dietary restriction.Palatability was assessed on a linear scale of 1 to 5(1=disgusting;5=tasty).Quality of preparation was scored by assignment-blinded endoscopists using the modified Aronchick and Ottawa scales.The main outcomes were the palatability and efficacy of the preparation.Secondary outcomes included patient willingness to retake the same preparation again in the future and completion of the prescribed preparation.RESULTS:Overall,200 patients were enrolled(100patients per arm).PEG+M was more palatable than Asc PEG(76%vs 62%,P=0.03).Completing the preparation was not different between study groups(91%PEG+M vs 86%Asc PEG,P=0.38)but more patients were willing to retake PEG+M(54%vs 40%respectively,P=0.047).There was no significant difference between PEG+M vs Asc PEG in adequate cleansing on both the modified Aronchick(82%vs77%,P=0.31)and the Ottawa scale(85%vs 74%,P=0.054).However,PEG+M was superior in the left colon on the Ottawa subsegmental score(score0-2:94%for PEG+M vs 81%for Asc PEG,P=0.005)and received significantly more excellent ratings than Asc PEG on the modified Aronchick scale(61%vs 43%,P=0.009).Both preparations performed less well in afternoon vs morning examinations(inadequate:29%vs 15.2%,P=0.02).CONCLUSION:4 L PEG plus menthol has better palatability and acceptability than 2 L ascorbic acidPEG and is associated with a higher rate of excellentpreparations;Clinicaltrial.gov identifier:NCT01788709.
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.
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 it