Histological overlap between colorectal villous/tubulovillous and traditional serrated adenomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To ascertain the degree of histological overlap between conventional villous/tubulovillous (VA/TVAs) and traditional serrated adenomas (TSA). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 180 polyps from the left colon/rectum diagnosed as VA/TVAs were retrieved randomly and reviewed by five pathologists looking specifically at luminal serration, cytoplasmic eosinophilia and the presence of ectopic crypt foci (ECF). For comparative purposes, 100 tubular adenomas and 80 TSAs were also examined. Twenty VA/TVAs were reclassified as TSA. Luminal serration as noted in TSA was not seen in any of the remaining 160 polyps, ECFs were noted in 55 of the 160 VA/TVAs (34%), while cytoplasmic eosinophilia (constituting <50% of the adenoma) was noted in only 10 of 160 cases (6.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Ectopic crypt foci and cytoplasmic eosinophilia are encountered in sporadic VA/TVAs but not to the same extent and degree as in TSA. ECFs were found in one-third of cases, but cytoplasmic eosinophilia is rare. The pattern of luminal serration in TSA is very characteristic and not recapitulated in VA/TVA. The occurrence of all three histological features together occurs only in TSA. ECFs are not a sine qua non for TSA and are encountered commonly in VA/TVAs. VA/TVAs often contain occasional glands typical of TSA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".