Diagnosis of Neoplastic Changes by Magnifying Colonoscopy in a Patient with Cronkhite–Canada Syndrome: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors described a typical case of Cronkhite–Canada syndrome, in which the terminal ileum and entire colorectum were meticulously observed by magnifying colonoscopy. Colonoscopy revealed a remarkably reddish and rough mucosa with small white spots in the right side of the colon, where there were a small number of sessile polyps measuring less than 10 mm in diameter. On magnified views, the pit pattern of these polyps consisted of slightly enlarged pits with an obvious widening of the pericryptal space, which were compatible with that of non‐neoplastic change. Biopsy specimens showed histologically dilated glands without dysplastic changes. A large number of reddish, elliptic and sessile polyps were observed in the left side of the colon. The pit pattern and histology of these polyps were almost the same as those of the polyps in the right side. There were two small sessile polyps of a different type in the mid‐transverse colon and in the sigmoid colon. These polyps were diagnosed as having neoplastic changes, according to the pit pattern diagnosis and the histology of both was adenoma with slight atypia. According to a review of the worldwide reports, a patient with Cronkhite–Canada syndrome has a high risk of developing colorectal carcinoma. Based on our experience, magnifying colonoscopy may be useful for identifying neoplastic changes in patients with Cronkhite–Canada syndrome.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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".