MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1515995755 · doi:10.1155/2007/401674

Colonic Polyps in Children and Adolescents

2007· review· en· W1515995755 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Carol Durno

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMUTYHMedicineColorectal cancerGastroenterologyAdenomatous polyposis coliIntestinal polypJuvenileInternal medicineFamilial adenomatous polyposisCancerMutationGeneGeneticsGermline mutationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colonic polyps most commonly present with rectal bleeding in children. The isolated juvenile polyp is the most frequent kind of polyp identified in children. 'Juvenile' refers to the histological type of polyp and not the age of onset of the polyp. Adolescents and adults with multiple juvenile polyps are at a significant risk of intestinal cancer. The challenge for adult and pediatric gastroenterologists is determining the precise risk of colorectal cancer in patients with juvenile polyposis syndrome. Attenuated familial adenamatous polyposis (AFAP) can occur either by a mutation at the extreme ends of the adenomatous polyposis coli gene or by biallelic mutations in the mutY homologue (MYH) gene. The identification of MYH-associated polyposis as an autosomal recessive condition has important implications for screening and management strategies. Adult and pediatric gastroenterologists need to be aware of the underlying inheritance patterns of polyposis syndromes so that patients and their families can be adequately evaluated and managed. Colonic polyps, including isolated juvenile polyps, juvenile polyposis syndrome, FAP, AFAP and MYH-associated polyposis, are discussed in the present review.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207