Systematic literature review and pooled analyses of risk factors for finding adenomas at surveillance colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines recommend surveillance after polypectomy. There is variation in the surveillance intervals that are being advised. This variation also affects adherence. Surveillance intervals need to be based on risk factors at index. We therefore aimed to systematically review risk factors of adenoma findings at surveillance colonoscopy. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed up to September 2009. Studies that reported on follow-up colonoscopy findings with stratification for index characteristics were included. Pooled relative risks (RR) were calculated using random effects models, and heterogeneity was determined by means of the I2-statistic. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. The most important risk factors for adenoma findings were the presence on index colonoscopy of the following: advanced adenomas (RR: 1.81), ≥ 3 adenomas (RR: 1.64), size ≥ 10 mm (RR: 1.66), and age ≥ 60 years (RR: 1.65). The presence of villous adenomas, high grade dysplasia, proximal adenomas, and male gender were associated with less profound increases in RR. Marked variation in study design and substantial heterogeneity between studies was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Convincing evidence exists that patients with advanced adenomas, ≥ 3 adenomas, adenomas ≥ 10 mm, or age ≥ 60 years have an increased risk of adenoma recurrence. The evidence for other baseline findings for an increased risk of adenoma recurrence is inconclusive. Marked variation and consistently lower RRs in studies of medium or low quality emphasize the necessity for well performed and well reported studies. Given the high impact of surveillance on patients and service providers, there is need for further assessment of the risk(s) of adenoma recurrence.
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 | 0.031 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.030 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".