Incidental Colorectal Computed Tomography Abnormalities: Would You Send every Patient for a Colonoscopy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of colorectal wall thickening (CRWT) in patients undergoing abdominal computed tomography (CT) has not yet been definitively established. OBJECTIVES: To compare alleged findings on abdominal CT with those of a follow-up colonoscopy. METHODS: Ninety-four consecutive patients found to have large-bowel abnormalities on abdominal CT were referred for colonoscopy. Of these patients, 48 were referred for a suspected colorectal tumour and 46 for CRWT. Colonoscopy was performed and findings were compared. RESULTS: Of the 48 suspected colorectal tumours, 34 were determined to be neoplastic lesions on colonoscopy. Of these, 26 were malignant and eight were benign. Colonoscopy revealed no abnormality in 30 of 46 patients with CRWT as a solitary finding, and revealed some abnormality in 16 patients (12 had diverticular disease, four had benign neoplastic lesions). CONCLUSIONS: CRWT as an incidental and solitary finding on CT should not be regarded as a pathology prompting a colonoscopy. Approximately two-thirds of the patients had a normal colonoscopy and the remaining patients had benign lesions (12 had diverticular disease and four had benign neoplastic lesions). However, many of these patients seem to warrant colonoscopy regardless of CT findings, particularly patients who have a family history of colorectal cancer, have positive fecal occult blood test results or who are older than 50 years of age.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".