MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2921815035 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.232

A233 BASELINE BOWEL ROUTINE AND OTHER PREDICTORS OF BOWEL PREPARATION IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING OUT-PATIENT COLONOSCOPY; RESULTS FROM A PROSPECTIVE SINGLE-CENTRE STUDY.

2019· article· en· W2921815035 on OpenAlexaffabout
Khurram J Khan, Aabid Nehvi, Mohammed Khan, H Fergani, Subhas C. Ganguli, S Jalali, David Morgan, Robert Spaziani, Kim M. Tsoi, David Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyBowel preparationEndoscopyGastroenterologyInternal medicineProspective cohort studyColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bowel preparation is essential as a quality measure of colonoscopy. Many studies have reported factors associate with a good bowel preparation but few have evaluated the effect of baseline bowel habit as a predictor. We aimed to identify factors associated with a good bowel preparation. Specifically, we wanted to determine if baseline bowel habit predicted response to bowel preparation and how accurate patient perception of their bowel preparation was compared to a standard bowel prep score. Prospective data was collected from out-patients undergoing colonoscopy in the form of a survey in the waiting room of the endoscopy unit. Data included baseline patient and endoscopy factors, and was compared to endoscopist reported Ottawa Bowel Preparation Score (OBPS) to look for correlation in a statistical analysis. Data were available for 243 patients; mean age 57 years, 46% male, 51% had more than a high school education. PEG-Lyte solution (4L) was used for bowel preparation by 48 (19.8%) and sodium picosulfate by 190 (80.2%). The mean OBPS was 3.48 +/- 2.47 SD. The baseline Bristol Stool Form Score (BSFS) was 1–2 in 13%, 3–5 in 74%, and 6–7 in 13% of patients, but BSFS did not predict a better OBPS (p=0.82). The mean times from the patients’ last fluids and last solids food to colonoscopy was 5.47 +/- 5.0 and 27.8 +/- 4.8 hours respectively, but neither was a significant predictor of better bowel prep. More procedures were in the afternoon (78%) but there was no difference in the OBPS in the morning and afternoon (Mann-Whitney test, p=0.47). Self-assessment of the quality of bowel preparation was not correlated with OBPS (Spearman rho 0.03, p=0.63), but a patients’ level of concern with not having a clean enough preparation was correlated with a worse OBPS (Spearman rho -0.175, p=0.012). The only significant predictor in a univariate analysis was bowel preparation type with sodium picosulfate being significantly better (Mann Whitney test, p<0.01) and this was also seen in preliminary multi-variate regression analysis (p=0.037). In this small prospective study, many of the factors presumed to be requisites for good bowel preparation – time from last food or fluid intake to colonoscopy, baseline stool form, self-reported bowel preparation score, patient demographics – were not correlated with a high quality OBPS. The only identified predictor of better bowel preparation score was the type of prepration, sodium picosulfate being significantly more effective than PEG electrolyte solution. 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→