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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.