Changes in Renal Function Following Administration of Oral Sodium Phosphate or Polyethylene Glycol for Colon Cleansing before Colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in renal function were compared in patients receiving oral sodium phosphate (NaP) for colon cleansing and those receiving large-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution to determine whether oral NaP resulted in frequent renal damage that had gone clinically undetected. From 1995 to 2004, a cohort of consecutive patients who had serum creatinine (Cr) drawn immediately before colonoscopy and again after subsequent procedures three months to nine years later (almost 80% of patients between the first and fifth year) were identified. Chronic renal failure (CRF) was defined as an abnormal Cr at repeat measurement or an abnormal Cr clearance as estimated by the Cockroft-Gault equation at the time of repeat Cr measurement. Medications and medical comorbid conditions were recorded. Seven hundred sixty-seven patients (51% female and 49% male; 81% oral NaP and 19% PEG) with normal baseline Cr levels were identified through the endoscopy unit database at the Hotel Dieu Hospital, Queen's University (Kingston, Ontario). Of these, 55 (7%) developed CRF. Forty-two (6.8%) patients receiving oral NaP developed renal failure compared with 13 patients (8.7%) receiving PEG (Fisher's exact test; P=0.382), but the magnitude of CRF was small in each group (Cr level lower than 160 mumol/L). Using logistic regression analysis with the choice of preparation, medications and medical comorbid conditions as independent variables, only age and blood pressure were predictive of the development of renal failure (P=0.014 and P=0.001, respectively). Baseline Cr clearance was similar in both the NaP and PEG groups and the absolute difference after colonoscopy did not differ. The present study concluded that the ingestion of oral NaP for colon cleansing before colonoscopy did not result in frequent renal damage that went clinically undetected.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".