Evaluating patient acceptability and bowel preparation efficacy of sodium picosulfate‐magnesium citrate for colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To evaluate patient acceptability and bowel preparation efficacy of sodium picosulfate‐magnesium citrate (PICOPREP) for colonoscopy. Methods A questionnaire survey regarding the patient acceptability of bowel preparation agent PICOPREP was administered to 54 patients, and its efficacy was evaluated using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS). Results Eighteen (33.3%) participants reported that PICOPREP is very easy to drink, 30 (55.5%) easy, four (7.4%) acceptable, one (1.9%) difficult, and one (1.9%) very difficult. The flavor was very good as reported by eight (14.8%) participants, good by 25 (46.3%), neutral by 20 (37.0%), bad by one (1.9%), and very bad by none. The number of patients who requested PICOPREP was 42 (77.7%), indicating its high acceptability. Evaluation of the OBPS score showed that the rectosigmoid colon had significantly better polyethylene glycol (PEG) scores than PICOPREP, but the entire colon did not show a significant difference between PICOPREP and PEG scores (1.09 ± 0.65 vs. 1.17 ± 0.76, p = 0.632 in the right colon; 0.48 ± 0.52 vs. 0.72 ± 0.66, p = 0.079 in the mid colon, 0.93 ± 0.49 vs. 0.63 ± 0.52, p = 0.012 in the rectosigmoid colon, and 3.28 ± 1.70 vs. 3.20 ± 1.90, p = 0.836 in the entire colon). Conclusion PICOPREP is considered as one of the important options due to its good patient acceptability and high efficacy similar to PEG.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".