Proximal versus distal hyperplastic polyps of the colorectum: different lesions or a biological spectrum?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because of their suggested link with microsatellite instability high colorectal cancers, right sided hyperplastic polyps (HPs) may differ from their distally located counterparts. This is highlighted by the recognition of a variant HP, termed sessile serrated adenoma (SSA), which predominates in the proximal colon. HPs displaying the morphological features now associated with SSAs have been shown to have altered expression of "cancer associated" markers, but no studies have investigated whether this is dependent on anatomical location of the polyps. AIMS: To evaluate morphological and functional features in right versus left sided HPs from patients without colorectal cancer with the aim of identifying distinguishing characteristics. METHODS: HPs originating in the proximal and distal colorectum were histochemically and immunohistochemically stained to evaluate a panel of markers related to proliferation and differentiation. In addition, a series of morphological features was evaluated for each polyp. RESULTS: Crypt serration, crypt dilatation, and horizontal crypt growth were more common among HPs from the right side, whereas histochemical factors including mucin changes, global methylation status, and expression of carcinoembryonic antigen were not significantly different. An age disparity was also seen between patients with right versus left sided lesions, with patients with right sided lesions being an average of more than 10 years younger than those with left sided lesions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that right and left sided HPs differ mainly in terms of growth regulation rather than cellular differentiation, implying that these lesions belong to a continuous spectrum of serrated polyps that differ quantitatively rather than qualitatively.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".