Randomized Comparison of Whole versus Split-dose of Polyethylene Glycol-electrolyte Solution for Bowel Preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Although polyethetylene glycol lavage(PEG) solution are widely used for colonoscopy preparation, it is very difficulty ingestion due to large volume. We compared the use of 4L of PEG solution with 2L division of PEG solution. Methods: Two hundred seventeen patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive either 4 L of PEG solution(n=104; Single group) on the day of colonoscopy, or 2 L of PEG solution on the day before colonoscopy and then 2 L of same solution on the day of colonoscopy (n=113; Split group). The quality of the bowel preparation was assessed by investigators who used the Ottawa scale. Cecal intubation time, compliance and side effects (nausea, vomiting, abdominal discomfort, dizziness, headache) was assessed. Results: Split group was better bowel preparation than the single group because difference of residual volume scale (P<0.05). But there was not statistical difference in the cecal intubation time. And there was no significant difference of compliance and side effect but the very difficulty of ingestion and residual PEG solution above 25% was greater in the single group. Conclusion: Split PEG solution are useful method for colonscoscopy preparation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".