Impact of a Telephone Intervention on Bowel Preparation Quality for Colonoscopy in the Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bowel preparation is the basis of colonoscopy, and adequate bowel preparation is essential to the success of colonoscopy. Studies have been reported that telephone intervention can improve the quality of bowel preparation, while it remains unclear regarding effectiveness with the elderly. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of telephone intervention on the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in elderly outpatients. In total, 162 outpatients older than 65 years were enrolled and randomly divided into a control group and a study group. Patients in the study group were re-educated through telephone by a specific nurse 2 days before colonoscopy, whereas participants in the control group received education only on the day of appointment. The Ottawa score was used to evaluate the quality of bowel preparation between the two groups. In this study, no significant differences were observed in age, gender, body mass index, educational level, smoking and/or alcohol drinking, waiting time to colonoscopy, reasons for colonoscopy, and colonoscopic findings between the control group and the study group. Participants in the study group had higher adequate bowel preparation and compliance than the control group (83.1% vs. 59.5%, p = .03; 96.4% vs. 74.7%, p < .001). Univariate analysis showed that only noncompliance with start time was significantly associated with satisfactory bowel preparation in elderly patients. In conclusion, telephone intervention 2 days before colonoscopy can improve the quality of bowel preparation in the elderly.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".