Comparative analysis of different doses of polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the efficacy of bowel-cleansing, patients′ compliance, tolerability and side effects of different doses of polyethylene glycol(PEG) electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation. Methods Single-blind prospective randomized trial was performed. A total of 100 inpatients undergoing elective colonoscopy were randomized into three groups to receive 4 L PEG(n=35), 2 L PEG(n=31) or 2+ 1 L PEG(n=34), respectively, on the day of colonoscopy from May to July 2014. Bowel-cleansing efficacy was separately assessed with the Ottawa Scale for the right, middle, and left colon. Total score was obtained by adding the scores for individual evaluation of the three colon segments with the score of overall fluid in the entire colon. All patients filled in a questionnaire and were interviewed about their compliance to the assigned bowel preparation, tolerability, and side effects. Results Patients who did not complete the colonoscopy were excluded. A total of 91 patients were included in the last analysis: 31 cases of 4 L group, 30 cases of 2 L group and 30 cases of 2+ 1 L group. The efficacy of bowel-cleansing of the three groups of patients according to the Ottawa Scale were similar(P>0.05), but the excellent and good rate of cleansing quality of the right colon was higher in 4 L group than in 2 L group(P<0.05). Compared with 4 L group and 2+ 1 L group, patients in the 2 L group had higher compliance and tolerability, as well as lower rate of side effects(P<0.05). Conclusion The efficacy and safety of taking 2 L polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution in bowel-cleansing on the day of colonoscopy is good and suitable for use. Taking 4 L polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for bowel preparation on the day of colonoscopy is more suitable for patients who are suspected highly with lesions of the right colon. Key words: Polyethylene glycols; Electrolytes; Colonoscopy; Bowel 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".