MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029919723 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2014-2201

Abstract 2201: Long-term risk of colorectal cancer in patients with sessile serrated adenomas, traditional serrated adenomas, and hyperplastic polyps

2014· article· en· W2029919723 on OpenAlexaff
John A. Baron, Rune Erichsen, Stephen Hamilton‐Dutoit, Dale C. Snover, Emina Torlakovic, Trine Frøslev, Lars Jacob Tynes Pedersen, Mogens Vyberg, Stanley R. Hamilton, Henrik Toft Sørensen

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHyperplastic PolypColonoscopyColorectal cancerInternal medicineOdds ratioAdenomaPopulationCancerGastroenterologyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Evidence for the recently recognized serrated pathway to colorectal cancer (CRCa) is based largely on the similarity of genetic changes in CpG island methylator phenotype positive (CIMP+) cancers and serrated lesions such as the sessile serrated adenoma (SSA). There is limited evidence regarding the future cancer risks in patients diagnosed with these lesions. Methods: We used Danish medical databases to select subjects for a population-based case-control study of CRCa within the population of 272,342 individuals who underwent colonoscopy during 1977 - 2009. 2,045 CRCa cases were diagnosed during 1977-2006. We used risk set sampling to select 8,105 controls matched by gender and year of birth to the cases. After accessing records of colorectal polyps identified in the subjects, we requested histopathological blocks for the first lesions diagnosed as hyperplastic polyps (HPs) at or after the first colonoscopy during the study period, and obtained them for 895 (97%) of the affected subjects. Four expert pathologists used current criteria to review these lesions and reclassify them as SSAs, traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs) or hyperplastic polyps (HPs). Lesions initially diagnosed as conventional adenomas (CADs) were not reviewed, nor were later polyps. We used conditional logistic regression to compute odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence limits (CIs) for CRCa associated with polyp types at the first examination recorded with HPs, using patients with no polyp history during the study period as the referent group and adjusting for age and year at first colonoscopy. Results: After review, 48 (2.3%) cases and 81 (1.0%) controls had SSAs but no CADs or TSAs (OR for CRCa = 3.34, 95% CI: 2.31-4.83). TSAs conferred a similarly high CRCa risk (OR = 3.35, 95%CI: 1.39-8.07), but HPs did not (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.96-1.77). The OR for CADs without SSA or TSA was 2.49 (95% CI: 2.23-2.79); subjects with both SSAs and CADs had an OR intermediate between those for CADs alone and SSAs alone. Women with SSAs and no CADs had a higher OR (4.92; 95% CI: 2.96-8.18) than men (OR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.24-3.82). Proximal SSAs were associated with a particularly high OR (12.39, 95% CI: 4.87-31.51). Consideration of reported metachronous lesions changed most of these ORs only modestly. Conclusions: We found that SSAs and TSAs are associated with a substantial increase in the risk of CRCa. These data provide further evidence for the serrated pathway to CRCa, with SSAs and TSAs as cancer precursors. Citation Format: John A. Baron, Rune Erichsen, Stephen J. Hamilton-Dutoit, Dale C. Snover, Emina E. Torlakovic, Trine Frøslev, Lars Pedersen, Mogens Vyberg, Stanley R. Hamilton, Henrik T. Sørensen. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer in patients with sessile serrated adenomas, traditional serrated adenomas, and hyperplastic polyps. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 2201. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-2201

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207