Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42134870›Full record

ArticleBMJ open gastroenterology2026

Development and validation of multivariable prognostic machine learning models to identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation when undergoing colonoscopy: a prospective, multicentre study.

Christoph Schramm, Carolin Hehn, Harald Curth, Ingo Scheller, Jan-Hinnerk Weingaertner, Matthias Christian Reichert, Philipp Kasper, Dilan Bozal, Gabriel Allo, Markus Casper and 10 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Christoph Schramm *Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Transplant Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Faculty of Medicine, Essen, Germany christoph.schramm1@outlook.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6752-0690
Carolin Hehn *Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Diabetology, Endocrinology, Metabolic Disease and Nutrition, St. Katharinen-Hospital GmbH, Frechen, Germany.
Harald CurthPraxis Stollenwerk, Cologne, Germany.
Ingo SchellerGastroenterologie Remscheid, Remscheid, Germany.
Jan-Hinnerk WeingaertnerMagen Darm Zentrum Wiener Platz, Cologne, Germany.
Matthias Christian ReichertDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Saarland University Medical Center, Homburg, Germany.
Philipp KasperDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Dilan BozalDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Gabriel AlloDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Markus CasperDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Saarland University Medical Center, Homburg, Germany.
Thomas AdamsDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Saarland University Medical Center, Homburg, Germany.
Leonie JochheimDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Transplant Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Faculty of Medicine, Essen, Germany.
Amos ZellerDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Transplant Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Faculty of Medicine, Essen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-1802-1163
Gilbert RaheDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Transplant Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Faculty of Medicine, Essen, Germany.
Joerg ZeehDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Diabetology, Endocrinology, Metabolic Disease and Nutrition, St. Katharinen-Hospital GmbH, Frechen, Germany.
Christoph Neumann-HaefelinDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Frank LammertCenter for Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.
Hartmut SchmidtDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Transplant Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Faculty of Medicine, Essen, Germany.
Christoph M Friedrich *Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (IMIBE), University of Duisburg-Essen, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Martin Buerger *Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveInadequate bowel preparation impairs the accuracy of colonoscopy and increases the burden on patients and healthcare systems. Consequently, the quality of bowel preparation is an important quality indicator. We aim to develop and validate multivariable prognostic models for the identification of patients at risk of inadequate bowel preparation using machine learning (ML).

methodsDemographic and clinical data from consecutive patients ≥18 years of age who underwent colonoscopy at six centres in Germany were prospectively collected. Adequate bowel preparation was defined as Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥6 with a value ≥2 in each colonic segment. We used statistical and ML methods to build prognostic models and to compare them to published models.

resultsOverall, we analysed 2652 patients, including 699 (26.4%) inpatient procedures. The mean patient age was 57.6 years (SD 16 years), and 48.9% were women. In 1401 (52.8%) patients, the indication was screening or surveillance, and 1035 (39%) patients had a first-time colonoscopy. The rate of inadequate bowel preparation was 16%. Sensitivities, specificities and areas under the curve of predictive models obtained by generalised boosting models, Ranger, support vector machine (radial), CatBoost and Net Regularised Generalised Linear Models were 0.51-0.86, 0.52-0.83 and 0.71-0.74, respectively. They were only marginally superior to a logistic regression model. All models had high negative predictive values >0.9 for inadequate bowel preparation. To detect one patient with inadequate bowel preparation, 8-10 patients need to be evaluated.

conclusionsPredictive models to identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation obtained by ML showed comparable results compared with a logistic regression model. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00018878.

Indexed as

CatharticsColonoscopyMachine LearningAdultAgedBoosting Machine Learning AlgorithmsColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsPredictive Value of TestsCatharticsCOLONOSCOPYCOLORECTAL CANCER SCREENINGENDOSCOPY

Identifiers

PMID42134870
PMCPMC13182457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.