Safety and efficacy of linaclotide combined with polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate safety and efficacy of linaclotide combined with polyethylene glycol(PEG) for bowel preparation. Methods A total of 612 patients from Department of Gastroenterology at the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University for colonoscopy examination from January to June 2023 were selected. They were divided into group 1(1 L PEG+2 L PEG), group 2(linaclotide+2 L PEG) and group 3(1 L PEG+linaclotide+1 L PEG) by random number table method, with 204 cases in each group. The Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale(OBPS), the insertion time of colonoscopy, the time of the first defecation, the frequency of defecations, the occurrence of adverse effects and patients' tolerability were compared among the three groups. Results A total of 601 patients completed bowel preparation and accepted colonoscopy. Group 1 exhibited no statistically significant differences to group 2 with regards to OBPS and insertion time. However, Group 2 demonstrated a shorter duration for the time of the first defecation in comparison to both group 1 and group 3(P＜0.05). Group 1 displayed a higher frequency of defecations as compared to Group 2 and Group 3(P＜0.05) . The incidence of adverse reactions was significantly lower in group 2 and group 3 than in group 1(P＜0.05). The overall tolerance score of patients in group 1 was lower than that in group 2 and group 3(P＜0.05). Conclusions The effect of combining 2 L PEG with 290 μg of linaclotide for bowel preparation before colonoscopy is similar to that of 3 L PEG. It can reduce the incidence of adverse reactions and patients exhibit good tolerance. For patients who are intolerant to a single high-dose administration of PEG, they need divided-dose regimen of 2 L PEG in combination with linaclotide.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".