MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3135014274 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab002.106

A108 ARE INPATIENTS STILL MORE LIKELY TO FAIL BOWEL PREPARATION IN THE SPLIT-DOSE ERA? FINDINGS FROM 47, 292 COLONOSCOPIES IN THE SOUTHWEST ONTARIO COLONOSCOPY COHORT

2021· article· en· W3135014274 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Sey, Aol Wong, Cassandra McDonald, E Y Liu, Brian Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyBowel preparationCohortInternal medicineIntubationGeneral surgeryGastroenterologySurgeryColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Prior studies before the widespread use of split-dose bowel preparation have shown a high rate of inadequate bowel preparation in hospitalized patients. Whether this is still true in the era of split-dose bowel preparation is unknown. Aims To determine the impact of inpatient status on bowel preparation quality in the contemporary era of split-dose bowel preparation. Methods The Southwest Ontario Colonoscopy cohort consists of all inpatient and outpatient colonoscopies performed between April 2017 and Oct 2018 at 21 hospitals serving a large geographic health region. Procedures done in patients < 18 years of age or by an endoscopist performing <50 colonoscopies/year were excluded. Data were collected through a mandatory quality assurance form that was completed by the endoscopist after each procedure. Pathology reports were manually reviewed. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, defined on an ordinal scale as “good” or “fair” rather than “poor”. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate (ADR), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (ssPDR), polyp detection rate (PDR), and cecal intubation rate (CIR). Results A total of 47,292 colonoscopies were performed by 75 physicians (36.2% by gastroenterologists, 60% by general surgeons, 4% others), of which 1,690 were inpatients (3.6%). Inpatients were older (mean 66.8 years vs 60.2 years, p<0.0001), more co-morbid (≥ASA grade 3, 53.6% vs 23.7%, p<0.0001), performed for symptomatic indications (95.7% vs 48.6%, p< 0.0001), have trainee involvement (47% vs 11.6% p<0.001), and less likely to receive split-dose bowel preparation (71.7% vs 91.6% p<0.001). On crude analysis, inpatients were less likely to have adequate bowel preparation (86.2% vs 97.6% p<0.001). On multi-variable analysis, inpatients had lower odds of achieving adequate bowel preparation (OR=0.41, 95% CI 0.33 - 0.50, p<0.001), lower ADR (OR=0.47, 95% CI 0.40 - 0.55, p<0.001), lower PDR (OR=0.54, 95% CI 0.47 - 0.61 p<0.001) and lower CIR (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.35 - 0.54, p<0.001). Conclusions In the era of split-dose bowel preparation, inpatient status is still an important predictor of inadequate bowel preparation with resultant lower quality outcome metrics. Funding Agencies None

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→