A242 THE INCIDENCE OF OUTPATIETN BOWEL PREPARTION REALATED COMLICATIONS AND “NO SHOW” FOR COLONOSCOPY: A SINGLE TERTIARY CARE CENTRE REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colonoscopy remains the preferred screening and diagnostic test for many gastroenterological diseases and excellent bowel preparation is needed to get the best results. Recently, many cases were released reporting the development of sever symptomatic hyponatremia with seizure and encephalopathy as a complications of bowel preparation formulas. Other studies showed development of dysnatremia with unknown significance. To detect the incidence of missing elective colonoscopy secondary to sever hyponatremia or other complications resulting from bowel preparation prior to procedure leading to admissions or emergency room visits We are reviewed all endoscopy outpatient lists and the electronic medical records of all patient who were booked for elective colonoscopy but did not show up to have it in a single large tertiary care hospital over a period of one year (2017) to correlate that with development of severe complications like hyponatremia that required hospital admission or emergency room visit to manage them. Out of 2226 colonoscopies booked in 2017, 105 patients did not show up for their procedures. Only 2 patients missed it because of hospital admission and neither were because of hyponatremia nor related to the bowel preparation. Another 3 patients did not show up for their procedures as they did not tolerate the preparation (vomiting) The risk of developing sever complications -mainly hyponatremia-secondary to any form of bowel preparation is still very low. We think they are safe with consideration of co-morbidities and risk factors that may contribute to the electrolytes shift and their life threatening complications. None
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".