Full Liquid Diet vs Clear Liquid Diet for Colonoscopy Preparation: Preliminary Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Colonoscopy is used as a part of health maintenance for disease prevention, surveillance and diagnosis. In order to facilitate a thorough exam the colon needs to be adequately prepared with diet and laxatives. The currently accepted diet for colonoscopy is a clear liquid diet on the day prior to procedure. Several studies have examined the effect of liberalizing the diet to include low-residue and fiber-free regimens. The aim of this study is to compare a full liquid diet to a clear liquid diet in preparation for colonoscopy, as it relates to bowel cleanliness, polyp detection rates, and patient satisfaction. Methods: This is a single center, prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. Patients undergoing a colonoscopy were randomized to receive a full liquid diet (including milk, milkshake, ice cream, pudding, yogurt, vegetable/fruit juice, cream, broth, and creamed soup) or a standard clear liquid diet. All patients were given a 2 L MoviPrep® laxative preparation (Salix Pharmaceuticals). The quality of the preparation was assessed using the Ottawa bowel preparation scale, by a blinded endoscopist. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a five-point Likert scale. Thirty four patients (18 men, 16 women; mean age 53, range 29-75) were included in the analysis. Nineteen patients were in the clear liquid and 15 were in the full liquid diet group (1 patient in the clear and 5 patients in the full liquid diet group did not undergo their colonoscopy). The patients in the clear liquid group were similar to the full liquid patients, with regard to number of comorbidities (i.e., Diabetes and Hypertension) and history of abdominal surgery. Indications for colonoscopy (diagnostic vs screening) were similar in the two groups. All patients, except one in the clear diet group completed their laxative preparation. Results: Adequacy of bowel cleansing did not differ between the clear (14/19 satisfactory; 5/19 unsatisfactory) and full (8/15 satisfactory; 7/15 unsatisfactory) liquid regimens (p=0.22). Cecal intubation was successful in all but one patient in the full liquid group. The number of patients with detected polyps did not differ between the full (8/15) and clear (6/19) groups (p=0.20). The average time to cecum was 14 minutes (range 5-35) in the clear group and 11.5 minutes (range 2-40) in the full liquid group. The average time to completion of the colonoscopy was 27 minutes in both groups. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that a full liquid diet does not worsen bowel preparation, decrease the ability to detect polyps, or increase total colonoscopy time, when compared with a clear liquid diet. Patient's overall satisfaction scores were similar for full and clear liquid diets.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".