A51 COMPARISON OF THE BOSTON BOWEL PREPARATION SCALE WITH AN AUDITABLE APPLICATION OF THE US MULTI-SOCIETY TASK FORCE GUIDELINES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing bowel preparation scales (BPS) are limited in their ability to predict interval to next colonoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) recommends screening or surveillance colonoscopies be repeated within the year if the preparation does not allow for detection of polyps greater than 5 mm in size. To assess reliability and validity of an auditable application of the MSTF in comparison with the Boston BPS (BBPS). We developed an auditable application of the MSTF guidelines which we termed the Montreal Bowel Preparation Scale (MBPS). We compared this with the BBPS using a total cut-off score of 6 with each segment score ≥2 (BBPS 2–6). In sensitivity analyses, we applied the MBPS using a cut-off of 3mm rather than 5mm, and also assessed the BBPS using an adequacy threshold of total score ≥5 (BBPS 5). Video recordings of 83 colonoscopies (8 for intra-rater agreements) were independently evaluated by nine physicians trained to use the different scales. Weighted kappas quantified intra- and inter-rater agreements. Intra class correlations were used to assess agreement of the BBPS as a continuous scale. Associations between scores and clinical outcomes were assessed. The BBPS 2–6 and 5mm MBPS showed moderate to substantial intra-rater agreements (κ=0.44–0.63 and κ=0.50–0.53, respectively), while inter-rater agreements were only fair to moderate and slight to moderate (κ=0.25–0.48 and κ=0.19–0.50, respectively). Similar results were noted using alternate thresholds of BBPS 5 and 3mm MBPS. No significant associations were found between scores and clinical outcomes. For all scales, intra-rater kappas were superior to inter-rater values with the latter reflecting at best moderate agreement. This modest performance may reflect the dichotomized interpretation of the scales (adequate vs inadequate) contrary to previous studies which compared scores assessed as continuous variables. Further validation studies of existing ordinal bowel preparation scales should aim to assess reliability in a categorical manner based on proposed adequacy thresholds in order to determine optimal interpretation with regards to interval to next colonoscopy. Inter- and intra-rater agreement 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 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 | 0.028 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".