Colon Cleansing for Colonoscopy in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low-volume preparations are gaining attention for higher acceptability but have been never evaluated in IBD. We compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a 2-L PEG with a 4-L PEG solution in patients with ulcerative colitis. METHODS: This is a multicenter, randomized, single-blind study. Adult outpatients with ulcerative colitis undergoing colonoscopy received either 2-L PEG plus bisacodyl or 4-L PEG. Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Ottawa Scale and rated as adequate if the score was ≤2 in each colon segment. Patient acceptance, satisfaction, and related symptoms were recorded. RESULTS: Preparation was adequate in 80% of the 211 patients without any differences between groups. Mean Ottawa scores for whole and right colon were similar in the 2 groups. As concern tolerability, 83% patients in 2-L PEG arm and 44.8% in 4-L PEG arm reported no or mild discomfort (P < 0.0001) and 94.3% and 61.9% expressed their willingness to repeat the preparation (P < 0.001). Palatability was better with 2-L PEG, whereas related symptoms occurred more frequently with 4-L PEG. Regardless of preparation, split dosage was associated with better cleansing. Further predictors of poor cleansing were moderate/severe discomfort during preparation and more than 6 hours between end of preparation and colonoscopy. Extension and severity of colitis did not influence quality of preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Low-volume PEG is not inferior to 4-L PEG for bowel cleansing in ulcerative colitis, but it is better tolerated and accepted. The time interval from solution intake and colonoscopy is the most important factor affecting quality of cleansing in ulcerative colitis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".