Serrated Lesions of the Colorectum: Review and Recommendations From an Expert Panel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Serrated lesions of the colorectum are the precursors of perhaps one-third of colorectal cancers (CRCs). Cancers arising in serrated lesions are usually in the proximal colon, and account for a disproportionate fraction of cancer identified after colonoscopy. We sought to provide guidance for the clinical management of serrated colorectal lesions based on current evidence and expert opinion regarding definitions, classification, and significance of serrated lesions. A consensus conference was held over 2 days reviewing the topic of serrated lesions from the perspectives of histology, molecular biology, epidemiology, clinical aspects, and serrated polyposis. Serrated lesions should be classified pathologically according to the World Health Organization criteria as hyperplastic polyp, sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P) with or without cytological dysplasia, or traditional serrated adenoma (TSA). SSA/P and TSA are premalignant lesions, but SSA/P is the principal serrated precursor of CRCs. Serrated lesions have a distinct endoscopic appearance, and several lines of evidence suggest that on average they are more difficult to detect than conventional adenomatous polyps. Effective colonoscopy requires an endoscopist trained in the endoscopic appearance of serrated lesions. We recommend that all serrated lesions proximal to the sigmoid colon and all serrated lesions in the rectosigmoid > 5 mm in size, be completely removed. Recommendations are made for post-polypectomy surveillance of serrated lesions and for surveillance of serrated polyposis patients and their relatives.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".