Rates of Minor Adverse Events and Health Resources Utilization Post-colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Little is known about minor adverse events following outpatient colonoscopies and the few existing studies are limited by possible recall bias and outcome misclassification. The purpose of this study is to estimate prospectively the rate of minor adverse events at 2, 14, and 30 days after outpatient colonoscopies, and assess healthcare resources utilization resulting from minor adverse events. Methods: A longitudinal cohort study with follow-ups at 2, 14, and 30 days was conducted among individuals having an outpatient colonoscopy at Montreal General Hospital. Consecutive individuals were interviewed by a research assistant prior to colonoscopy to obtain baseline characteristics (age, gender, comorbidities, use of antiplatelets/anticoagulants, prior symptoms). Endoscopy reports were consulted for the colonoscopy indication, colonoscopy findings, biopsies and polypectomies. Follow-up occurred by either phone interview or internet survey, according to the participant's choice; data collected included: minor adverse events (abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, blood in the stools, rectal or anal pain, headaches, other) and health resources utilization (emergency department, primary care doctor, gastroenterologist, nurse, pharmacist, health hotline). Minor adverse event rates were estimated at each follow-up using a Bayesian hierarchical model accounting for physician clustering. Two sets of analyses were performed. In the first, we included all adverse events reported, and in the second, we excluded complaints that were present before the colonoscopy (based on the symptoms reported at the baseline interview). Results: Of the 705 individuals approached, 421 (59.7%) were recruited. The minor adverse event rates at the two, 14 and 30 days follow-up were 25.8% (95% CI 12.5%, 43.5%), 13.9% (95% CI 5.2%, 25.9%), and 4.3 (95% CI 0.06%, 12.5%), respectively. After excluding complaints that were present before the colonoscopy, the minor adverse event rates at the 2, 14, and 30 days follow-up were 17.2% (95% CI 8.0%, 29.6%), 9.7% (95% CI 2.4%, 23.4%) and 3.1% (95% CI 0.08%,13.2%), respectively. There was little variation among physician specific rates. Overall health resources utilization for minor adverse events was low (1.8%). Conclusion: Minor adverse events post-colonoscopy are common, occur mainly in the first two weeks and result in little use of health resources.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".