Application of Puritybile capsules combined with different doses of Compound polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The study aimed to observe the influence of Puritybile capsules combined with different doses of Compound polyethylene glycol (PEG) in bowel preparation. Methods 120 patients were set into three groups (group A, B and C) randomly (40 patients in each). Group A take the routine Compound polyethylene glycol treatment orally. On the basis of the same routine Compound polyethylene glycol treat-ment, group B added regular dose of Puritybile capsules. Group C took half dose of Compound polyethylene glycol and regular dose of Puritybile capsules. The cleaning effect and adverse reaction were compared among three groups. Results According to Ottawa Scale, the cleaning effects as well as the existing of air bubbles showed no significant difference among three groups. Among which group C was 30% lower than that of group A, 10% lower than that of group B. There was no statistical differences in adverse events. Conclusions Half dose of Compound polyethylene glycol and regular dose of Puritybile capsules can guarantee the ef-fect of bowel cleaning and lower medical expense of patients. Key words: Colonoscopy; Compound polyethylene glycol; Puritybile capsules
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".