559 Patients' Descriptions of Their Last Bowel Movement Before Colonoscopy, Converted to a Standardized Score, Shows Strong Correlation With Their Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) Score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Early detection of adenomatous polyps and adenocarcinoma reduces mortality. The effectiveness of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening is reliant on the quality of bowel preparation. Patients with inadequate bowel preparation may require repeat colonoscopy; this exposes patients to further risks while placing financial stress on individuals and healthcare systems. The purpose of this study is to assess if a patient's description of their last bowel movement, converted to a standardized score, correlates to the quality of bowel cleansing. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study performed at two hospitals with data collected over two months. On the day of the colonoscopy, prior to the procedure, outpatients were asked by a resident physician to describe their last bowel movement. The description was converted to a standardized score: “fully solid”, assigned a score of 0; “liquid with solid pieces”, assigned a score of 1; “brown liquid”, assigned a score of 2; and “clear / yellow liquid”, assigned a score of 3. Subsequently, each patient's total and segmental Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score was determined and recorded by the clinician performing the colonoscopy. The nurses and clinicians performing the procedure were blinded to the patient's last bowel movement description. Data analysis using bivariate Pearson's Correlation was used to assess the strength of correlation between the patients' descriptions and BBPS scores. RESULTS: Study population characteristics: N = 121, 66 F and 55 M; mean age 56.16 with Std. Dev. of 16.12; mean total BBPS 7.74 with Std. Dev. of 1.87. Bivariate Pearson's Correlation showed a strong correlation (r = 0.738; P < 0.001) between the patients' descriptions and total BBPS score. Patients' descriptions versus segmental BBPS scores showed: a strong correlation with Left Colon BBPS (r = 0.702; P < 0.001); a moderate correlation with Transverse Colon BBPS (r = 0.632; P < 0.001); and a moderate correlation with Right Colon BBPS (r = 0.667; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A patient's description of their last bowel movement, converted to a standardized score, shows a strong correlation with their BBPS score. One implication of identifying a patient with inadequate bowel preparation before a colonoscopy is potentially rescheduling the procedure. Alternatively, it may be possible to provide patients with extra time and medication for colon cleansing before the colonoscopy is attempted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".