Sessile Serrated Polyps at Screening Colonoscopy: Have They Been Under Diagnosed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P) is increasingly recognized as an important precursor to colorectal cancer (CRC) and may contribute to proximal postcolonoscopy CRCs. Hyperplastic polyps (HPs) generally follow a more benign course than do SSA/Ps, but they have a similar histologic appearance. Our aims were to identify patient and polyp factors associated with reclassification of HPs as SSA/Ps during a central pathology review and to characterize and compare their subsequent clinical management with other polyps. METHODS: From 2003 to 2008, we prospectively enrolled asymptomatic persons aged 50-74 years in a study of screening colonoscopy. Because criteria for SSA/P diagnosis evolved over our study period, we initiated a second review of all HPs >5 mm in size in 2011, with reclassification of polyps if indicated. Rates of subsequent colonoscopies, polypectomies, and CRCs were identified. RESULTS: We enrolled 2,527 persons who underwent colonoscopy in whom 111 had HPs >5 mm. Thirty-two of the 111 participants (28.8%) with HPs >5 mm had their polyps reclassified as SSA/Ps. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between those with reclassified SSA/Ps and those who had HPs >5 mm. SSA/Ps were more likely to be proximal (P<0.001) and larger (P<0.007) than the HPs. In all, 48.3% of those with high-risk adenomas received appropriate follow-up compared with 26.1% of those with high-risk SSA/Ps. CONCLUSIONS: Almost 1/3 of recently diagnosed HPs >5 mm were reclassified as SSA/Ps. Patients previously diagnosed with larger HPs in the proximal colon may benefit from a pathologic review to ensure appropriate diagnosis and follow-up.
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 | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".