Investigation on the effect of bowel preparation before colonoscopy and its influencing factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the effect of bowel preparation before colonoscopy and its influencing factors. Methods A total of 283 patients with colonoscopy were recruited by convenience sampling method. They were investigated with basic information questionnaire of bowel preparation and their intestinal cleanliness were assessed by the Ottawa Assessment Scale. The status of bowel preparation and it′s influenced factors were analyzed. Results The total score of Ottawa Assessment Scale was (5.37 ± 2.22) points, and the efficiency of intestinal cleaning was only 59%(167/283). Logistic regression analysis showed that age (OR=1.033, P=0.013); history of chronic constipation (OR=10.341, P=0.000); history of appendectomy (OR=5.349, P=0.007); walking time during medication (OR=0.350, P=0.000); incomplete intake of the preparation (OR=0.078, P=0.000), the time interval between the initiation of ingestion and the onset of bowel activity (OR=1.034, P=0.000), defecation frequency (OR=0.794, P=0.004);characteristics of last stool (OR=0.159, P=0.000) were influencing factors of intestinal cleanliness. Conclusions The intestinal cleanliness of patients with colonoscopy is still at a low level. In the future, medical personnel should identify patients with risk factors early, and give them specific bowel preparation, so as to improve the quality of bowel preparation effectively. Key words: Colonoscopy; Bowel preparation; Influencing factors
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".