Evaluation of Guidelines for Management of Familial Adenomatous Polyposis in a Multicenter Pediatric Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively assess, in a pediatric multicenter cohort, guidelines for the management of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). METHODS: Ten centers from the French-speaking Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition Group provided follow-up data on patients up to 18 years of age. Clinical records, genetic test results, endoscopy with histopathology examination, and therapeutic modalities were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 70 children from 47 families were included. When initial consultation resulted from a surveillance program because of an affected family member, 12 of 59 children were already symptomatic. Among 11 patients whose initial consultation was based only on symptoms, families were unaware at the time of a familial FAP history for 7 children, whereas only 4 cases were sporadic. A panel of 27 different pathogenic adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) germ-line mutations and large genomic deletions were identified in 43 families. Extracolonic manifestations were found in half of the patients. As part of the standard practice for initial screening, the entire cohort underwent colonoscopy, which revealed adenoma above an intact rectosigmoid in 8 cases. Prophylactic colectomy was performed in 42 cases; high-grade dysplastic adenoma and 1 invasive carcinoma were detected in 6 children. For timing of surgery, indications were in accordance with recent international guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Defining optimal screening and therapeutic modalities in pediatric FAP cohorts is a challenge. Specific advice for genetic screening, endoscopy surveillance, and type of surgery based on recent guidelines is recommended.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".