Application of Puritybile capsules combined with different doses of Compound polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it