Regular diet is non-inferior to restricted diet after polypectomy with decreased hospitalization length of stay and cost: a randomized–controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There are no data comparing a regular diet with a restricted diet after endoscopic polypectomy in patients with colorectal polyps. The current guidelines also did not provide the detailed information of dietary patterns after polypectomy. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of different diets on post-polypectomy outcomes. Methods A total of 302 patients with colorectal polyps who underwent polypectomy were prospectively enrolled between March 2019 and December 2019 in Nanfang Hospital (Guangzhou, China). Enrolled patients were then randomly assigned to a regular diet group or a restricted diet group after polypectomy. The study is a non-inferior design and the primary end point was the post-operative adverse events (AE) rate. Secondary end points included length of stay (LOS) and hospitalization cost. Results Among all the included patients, 148 patients received a restricted diet and 154 patients received a regular diet after polypectomy. A total of 376 polyps were removed, with 183 polyps in the restricted diet group and 193 polyps in the regular diet group. Shorter LOS (4.0 ± 1.4 vs 4.8 ± 1.7, P < 0.001) and lower hospitalization costs (7,701.63 ± 2,579.07 vs 8,656.05 ± 3,138.53, P = 0.001) were observed in the regular diet group. In particular, there was no significant difference in 3-day AE rates between the restricted diet and the regular diet group (1.35% [2/148] vs 2.60% [4/154], P = 0.685). Subgroup analysis looking at the number of polyps removed in each patient and different treatment modalities also showed similar findings. Conclusion Regular diet should be recommended after polypectomy for polyps <20 mm as it can shorten LOS and save hospitalization costs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".