MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033452193 · doi:10.2196/18174

The Impact of a Smartphone App on the Quality of Pediatric Colonoscopy Preparations: Randomized Controlled Trial

2020· article· en· W3033452193 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James Brief, Anupama Chawla, Diana G. Lerner, Bernadette Vitola, Robert P. Woroniecki, Jeffrey Morganstern

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopySmartphone appMedicineRandomized controlled trialPhoneMultimediaPhysical therapyInternal medicineColorectal cancerWorld Wide WebComputer scienceCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Smartphone apps have been successfully used to help adults prepare for colonoscopies. However, no study to date has investigated the effect of a smartphone app on pediatric colonoscopy preparation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine if an app (SB Colonoscopy Prep) designed to educate and guide patients through their colonoscopy preparation will yield benefits over paper-based instructions and information. METHODS: In total, 46 patients aged 5-18 years received either app-based or written material with instructions on how to take their prep medications as well as information about the colonoscopy procedure. Prep quality, the number of calls to the gastroenterology service, and patient arrival time were recorded. After the procedure, a questionnaire was given to each patient through which they graded their knowledge of the procedure both before and after receiving the app or written material. RESULTS: App users had higher mean Boston scores versus control subjects receiving written instructions (7.2 vs 5.9, P=.02), indicating better colonoscopy preps. In total, 75% (15/20) of app users and 41% (9/22) of written instruction users had preps categorized as "excellent" on the Boston scale. We found no significant differences in knowledge about the procedure (app users: 10/20 [50%], written instruction users 8/22 [36%]; P=.37), phone calls to the gastroenterology clinic (n=6 vs n=2; P=.27), or arrival times at the endoscopy suite (44 min vs 46 min before the scheduled procedure time; P=.56). CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone app use was associated with an increased number of colonoscopy preps classified as "excellent" on the Boston scale. There was no significant difference between app users and the control group regarding the number of calls to the gastroenterology clinic, patient arrival time, or patient knowledge about the procedure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04590105; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04590105.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207