Gastric polyps in patients with portal hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Gastric hyperplastic polyps are usually associated with chronic gastritis including Helicobacter pylori gastritis and postantrectomy stomachs. Here, we report on a series of 12 patients with portal hypertension secondary to liver cirrhosis, who were found to have a unique histological type of gastric polyp on endoscopy. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 12 patients with portal hypertension, who presented with histologically diagnosed gastric hyperplastic polyps. These polyps were reviewed and compared with hyperplastic polyps from 21 patients who did not have portal hypertension. RESULTS: The endoscopic appearances of portal hypertension-associated polyps varied considerably, with sizes ranging up to 18 mm. They were sessile or pedunculated, singular or multiple, found in the antrum or body of the stomach, and endoscopically appeared to be typical hyperplastic polyps. Histopathological examination, however, showed mucosal hyperplasia and extensive vascular proliferation and granulation tissue formation. CONCLUSION: The unique histological appearance of gastric hyperplastic polyps in patients with portal hypertension polyps is described. The exact pathogenetic mechanism of polyp formation is unclear although it seems possible that the underlying cause is mucosal injury that is vascular in nature rather than being secondary to surface inflammation. Although there is an emerging evidence of the neoplastic potential of usual hyperplastic polyps, the natural history of portal hypertension-associated polyps is unknown. Identification and management of portal hypertension-associated gastric polyps present a particular dilemma, as these patients often have coagulopathies and vascular ectasias. Therefore, the natural history and endoscopic features of gastric polyps arising in portal hypertensive patients warrants further exploration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".