MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3007658144 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz047.001

A2 THE BOWEL CLEANSING NATIONAL INITIATIVE (BCLEAN): PREDICTORS OF INADEQUATE BOWEL PREPARATION

2020· article· en· W3007658144 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alan Barkun, Myriam Martel, Ian Epstein, Pierre Hallé, Robert J. Hilsden, Paul D. James, Alaa Rostom, Michael Sey, Harminder Singh, Richard Sultanian, Jennifer J. Telford, Daniel von Renteln

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of AlbertaMontreal General HospitalUniversity of ManitobaWestern UniversityUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryHôpital du Saint-SacrementUniversity Health NetworkDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBowel preparationColonoscopyRandomizationRandomized controlled trialConfoundingExact testInternal medicineDefecationGastroenterologyColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Adequate bowel cleansing before colonoscopy is, in theory, a simple concept but the high rate of inadequate or incomplete bowel cleanliness and its consequences have been the subject of many studies, guidelines, and meta- analyses. The complexity resides in all the pre-endoscopic factors surrounding preparation intake that may? influence quality of the bowel preparation. Aims To identify preendoscopic variables associated with inadequate bowel preparation Methods In this randomized trial conducted in adult outpatients in 10 Canadian hospitals, all early morning (AM) colonoscopies were scheduled between 7h30AM and 10h30AM and patients were randomized to PEG low volume or high- volume split-dose or high- volume day before. Later colonoscopies (PM) were scheduled between 10h30AM and 16h30PM and patients were randomized to PEG low-volume or high- volume split-dose or low- volume same day. A secondary random allocation assigned patients to a clear fluid or low residue diet. Inadequate bowel preparation was identified on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale with a total score <6 with any of the 3 colonic segments subscores <2). All preendoscopic variables such as patients related factors, diet and type of bowel preparation were evaluated between groups with chi-square, Fisher’s exact or t-test where appropriate. All variables found to be significantly associated with a clean preparation on univariable analysis at the P=0.15 level were used to construct a multivariable model. Because of stratified randomization by time with possible resulting differing confounders, AM and PM patients were analysed separately. Results Over 29 months, 1726 patients were stratified in the AM group and 1750 patients in the PM group. 16.9% had inadequate bowel preparation in the AM group and 9.8% in the PM group. Pre-endoscopic variables associated with an inadequate bowel cleanliness in AM colonoscopy were a non screening indication (OR 1.36, 95%CI 1.04–1.78), a Charlson score>0 (OR 1.36, 95% 1.03–1.80) and a low residue diet (OR 1.53, 95%CI 1.17–2.01). Amongst PM colonoscopies, variables associated with an inadequate bowel cleanliness were increased age (OR 1.03, 95% 1.01–1.04), a non screening indication (OR 1.90 95%CI 1.35–2.70); a Charlson score>0 (OR 1.63, 95%CI 1.15–2.32), and a low residue diet (OR 1.41, 95%CI 1.01; 1.98). Conclusions In this large randomized trial, amongst patients undergoing an AM colonoscopy, pre- endoscopic factors associated with an inadequate bowel preparation were a non screening indication, comorbidities and a low residue diet. Amongst PM colonoscopy patients, in addition to these variables, an increased age was also associated with an inadequate bowel preparation. Funding Agencies received arm-length funding from Pendopharm Inc.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→