MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285240218 · doi:10.4328/acam.20810

Effectiveness of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate without diet vs. sennoside with diet in bowel preparation

2022· article· en· W4285240218 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ramazan Saygın Kerimoğlu, Süleyman Kargın, Alpaslan Şahin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Clinical and Analytical Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnesiumBowel preparationSodiumInternal medicineMedicineGastroenterologyChemistryColonoscopyColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: A three-day diet in bowel preparation before undergoing colonoscopy is an important factor that affects patient compliance. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate without a diet and rectal enema application protocol and conventional sennoside protocol before colonoscopy. Material and Methods: This is a prospective, single-centre, investigator-blinded, randomized study. A total of 60 patients were recruited: 30 in the sennoside group and 30 in the sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate group. All procedures were performed by an experienced endoscopist who was blinded to the bowel preparation protocol. The Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale was used by the endoscopist to assess the bowel preparation state. Results: The effectiveness of bowel cleansing regimens was similar in the entire, right, transverse, descending, and rectosigmoid colon according to the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (p>0.05). There was no difference between the groups in terms of cecal intubation rates, the detection of polyps, and the number of polyps. Discussion:The use of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate is an effective bowel cleansing agent and can provide both successful colonoscopy and patient compliance without a three-day fiber-free diet.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Clinical and Analytical MedicineSame topicIntestinal and Peritoneal AdhesionsFrench-language works237,207