Wireless capsule endoscopy in detecting small-intestinalpolyps in familial adenomatous polyposis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To detect the prevalence of small bowel polyps by wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). METHODS: We examined prospectively 14 patients with FAP to assess the location, size and number of small-intestinal polyps. Patients' age, sex, years of observation after surgery, type of surgery, duodenal polyps and colorectal cancer at surgery were analyzed. RESULTS: During WCE, polyps were detected in 9/14 (64.3%) patients. Duodenal adenomatous polyps were found in nine (64.3%) patients, and jejunal and ileal polyps in seven (50%) and eight (57.1%), respectively. The Spigelman stage of duodenal polyposis was associated with the presence of jejunal and ileal polyps. Identification of the ampulla of Vater was not achieved with WCE. Importantly, the findings of WCE had no immediate impact on the further clinical management of FAP patients. No procedure-related complications were observed in the patients. CONCLUSION: WCE is a promising noninvasive new method for the detection of small-intestinal polyps. Further investigation is required to determine which phenotype of FAP is needed for surveillance with WCE.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".