MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080236774 · doi:10.1097/pas.0b013e31824e133f

Phenotype and Polyp Landscape in Serrated Polyposis Syndrome

2012· article· en· W2080236774 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christophe Rosty, Daniel D. Buchanan, Michael D. Walsh, Sally‐Ann Pearson, Erika Pavluk, Rhiannon Walters, Mark Clendenning, Kevin J. Spring, Mark A. Jenkins, Aung Ko Win, John L. Hopper, Kevin Sweet, Wendy L. Frankel, Melyssa Aronson, Steve Gallinger, Jack Goldblatt, Sonja Woodall, Julie Arnold, Neal I. Walker, Jeremy R. Jass, Susan Parry, Joanne Young

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsHyperplastic PolypDysplasiaGastroenterologyInternal medicineColorectal cancerKRASMedicineAdenomaPhenotypePathologyCancerColonoscopyBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS), also known as hyperplastic polyposis, is a syndrome of unknown genetic basis defined by the occurrence of multiple serrated polyps in the large intestine and associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). There are a variety of SPS presentations, which may encompass a continuum of phenotypes modified by environmental and genetic factors. To explore the phenotype of SPS, we recorded the histologic and molecular characteristics of multiple colorectal polyps in patients with SPS recruited between 2000 and 2010 from genetics clinics in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. Three specialist gastrointestinal pathologists reviewed the polyps, which they classified into conventional adenomas or serrated polyps, with various subtypes, according to the current World Health Organization criteria. Mutations in BRAF and KRAS and mismatch repair protein expression were determined in a subset of polyps. A total of 100 patients were selected for the study, of whom 58 were female and 42 were male. The total polyp count per patient ranged from 6 to 150 (median 30). The vast majority of patients (89%) had polyposis affecting the entire large intestine. From this cohort, 406 polyps were reviewed. Most of the polyps (83%) were serrated polyps: microvesicular hyperplastic polyps (HP) (n=156), goblet cell HP (n=25), sessile serrated adenoma/polyps (SSA/P) (n=110), SSA/P with cytologic dysplasia (n=28), and traditional serrated adenomas (n=18). A further 69 polyps were conventional adenomas. BRAF mutation was mainly detected in SSA/P with dysplasia (95%), SSA/P (85%), microvesicular HP (76%), and traditional serrated adenoma (54%), whereas KRAS mutation was present mainly in goblet cell HP (50%) and in tubulovillous adenoma (45%). Four of 6 SSA/Ps with high-grade dysplasia showed loss of MLH1/PMS2 expression. CRC was diagnosed in 39 patients who were more often found to have a conventional adenoma compared with patients without CRC (P=0.003). Patients with SPS referred to genetics clinics had a pancolonic disease with a high polyp burden and a high rate of BRAF mutation. The occurrence of CRC was associated with the presence of conventional adenoma.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations87
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Surgical PathologySame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207