An observational study on the modulation of anxiety, depression, and adverse event incidence in painless colonoscopy patients through venous access nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the clinical significance of venous access nursing in modulating anxiety, depression, and adverse event incidence among patients undergoing painless colonoscopy. Sixty patients who underwent painless colonoscopy in our hospital from September 2021 to September 2022 were selected as the control group (CG, receiving routine perioperative nursing). Sixty patients who underwent painless colonoscopy in our hospital from October 2022 to August 2023 were taken as the study group (SG, receiving venous access nursing modulation). After nursing, patients in the SG exhibited lower scores of the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale and the Self-Rating Depression Scale than those in the CG (P < .05). The SG showed significantly lower mean Ottawa Bowel Preparation Score, but exhibited higher adequacy of bowel preparation compared with the CG (P < .05). The colonoscopy insertion time was (7.18 ± 1.02) minutes in the SG and (8.69 ± 1.00) minutes in the CG, and the colonoscopy withdrawal time was (4.66 ± 1.66) minutes in the SG and (5.64 ± 1.06) minutes in the CG, which showed statistically significant differences between the 2 groups (P < .05). The total incidence of adverse events did not have statistical significance between the 2 groups (P > .05). Application of venous access nursing in patients undergoing painless colonoscopy may help alleviate adverse emotions and shorten colonoscopy insertion time and colonoscopy withdrawal time, thus warranting recognition for its safety and efficacy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".