MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081398835 · doi:10.1136/jcp.2003.015230

My approach to serrated polyps of the colorectum

2004· review· en· W2081398835 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperplastic PolypMicrosatellite instabilityColorectal cancerAdenomaDNA methylationPathologyMutationCancerMedicineBiologyBioinformaticsCancer researchMicrosatelliteInternal medicineGeneticsGeneColonoscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hyperplastic polyps of the colorectum are heterogeneous lesions, a subset of which is now regarded as the precursor of colorectal cancer with DNA microsatellite instability. Some authors have distinguished this subset from classic hyperplastic polyps and have introduced the term "sessile serrated adenoma". These lesions frequently show BRAF mutation and DNA methylation. This personal perspective reviews recent insights into serrated polyps and highlights the importance of inhibition of apoptosis as a unifying mechanism. It is estimated that around 25 hyperplastic polyps of the proximal colon exist for every colorectal cancer with DNA microsatellite instability. Further research is required to identify additional risk factors for hyperplastic polyps other than anatomical location. These may be demographic, clinical, morphological, or molecular. It is not recommended that the term sessile serrated adenoma be used in routine reporting, but it is desirable that potentially aggressive hyperplastic polyps should be identified for the purposes of both clinical practice and research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.289 · 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