Phenotypic diversity in patients with multiple serrated polyps: a genetics clinic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hyperplastic polyposis is a colonic polyposis condition of unknown aetiology. The purpose of this study was to examine the spectrum of phenotypic variation in patients with multiple serrated polyps as a basis for gene discovery. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-six patients with multiple (> or = 5) serrated polyps were recruited to the study. Polyp counts were extracted from histology and colonoscopy reports. Ethnicity was self-reported. Family history of cancer data were derived from pedigrees. Ascertainment status was classified as either index case or identified by screening. RESULTS: The average reported polyp count was 39. Patients with highest polyp numbers were more likely to be male (P = 0.02). Colorectal cancer (CRC) was identified in 49 of 119 patients (41%) and 28% of these patients had multiple CRC. Young onset patients had higher polyp numbers (P = 0.03) and were more likely to have their CRC in the distal colon (P = 0.02). CRC was significantly associated with the presence of adenomas (P = 0.03). Patients were divided into moderate polyposis (5-79 serrated polyps) and dense polyposis (80 or more) categories. The dense polyposis category was associated with a lack of family history for CRC (P = 0.034) and male gender (P = 0.014), independent of ascertainment status and recruitment site. CONCLUSION: Multiple serrated polyps were associated with an increased personal risk of CRC. A subset of patients with the highest polyp numbers was more likely to be male and to have no family history of CRC. This result suggests heterogeneous modes of inheritance and has implications for studies investigating the genetic basis of multiple serrated polyps.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".