MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

323 Age-Dependent Tolerability and Adenoma Detection With a Ready-to-Drink Low-Volume Bowel Preparation: Subgroup Analysis From a Randomized, Assessor-Blinded, Multicenter Study

2019· article· en· W2979306393 on OpenAlexaff
Gerald Bertiger, Lawrence Hookey, Kenneth L. Johnson, Masakazu Ando, Laura Stong, Nadeem Khan, David N. Dahdal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTolerabilityColonoscopyInternal medicineAdenomaGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectSubgroup analysisClinical endpointBowel preparationSurgeryColorectal cancerCancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Poor patient adherence to bowel preparation may lead to negative outcomes, including incomplete colonoscopy, missed lesions at colonoscopy, and need for repeat colonoscopy. Older adults (≥65 y) may be more sensitive to negative attributes associated with existing bowel preparations. Here, we present a subanalysis by age of patient tolerability, efficacy, and polyp detection with a ready-to-drink preparation of sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid (SPMC oral solution). METHODS: A phase 3, randomized, multicenter study compared the efficacy and safety of split-dose SPMC oral solution to a powder formulation for colon cleansing in adults undergoing elective colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or diagnosis. We present a subgroup analysis by age (< 50 y, 50-64 y, ≥65 y). Study protocol was approved by Schulman IRB (#000253). The primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by a blinded endoscopist for overall colon cleansing quality using a modified Aronchick Scale (AS). Tolerability was assessed by the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and laboratory evaluations. Any polyps found during the colonoscopy were removed, recorded as AEs, and sent for histological analysis. Polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) were calculated as the percentage of any participants who had ≥1 polyp or adenoma, respectively (NCT03017235). RESULTS: Of 448 patients in the SPMC group, 71 (15.8%) were < 50 y, 253 (56.5%) were 50-64 y, and 124 (27.7%) were ≥65 y. Responders by AS (“excellent” or “good” ratings) were 91.5% of those < 50 y, 88.5% of those 50-64 y, and 83.9% of those ≥65 y (Figure 1). Greater than 97.6% of participants in any age group had < 25% of the bowel preparation remaining, and ³89% found it easy or acceptable to ingest (Figure 2). PDR and ADR increased with increasing age group (Figure 3). Select drug-related AEs previously associated with SPMC oral solution, by ascending age group, were nausea (7.0%, 3.2%, 0.8%), headache (4.2%, 2.8%, 1.6%), vomiting (2.8%, 1.2%, 0.8%), and hypermagnesemia (1.4%, 2.0%, 2.4%). CONCLUSION: Tolerability of SPMC oral solution increased with age group, with the majority of patients ³65 years old stating it was easy to ingest. PDR and ADR increased with age. Older adults may benefit from a bowel preparation that is more tolerable, which may improve preparation compliance, quality of colon cleansing, and adenoma detection.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designRandomized trial
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→