MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028967705 · doi:10.1111/his.12555

Histological overlap between colorectal villous/tubulovillous and traditional serrated adenomas

2014· article· en· W2028967705 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Hafezi‐Bakhtiari, Lai Mun Wang, Richard Colling, Stefano Serra, Runjan Chetty

Bibliographic record

VenueHistopathology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEosinophiliaRectumVillous adenomaMedicinePathologyAdenomaGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistopathologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207