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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence has now accumulated that colonoscopy and removal of polyps, especially during screening and surveillance programs, is effective in overall risk reduction for colon cancer. After resection of malignant pedunculated colon polyps or early stage colon cancers, long-term repeated surveillance programs can also lead to detection and removal of asymptomatic high risk advanced adenomas and new early stage metachronous cancers. Early stage colon cancer can be defined as disease that appears to have been completely resected with no subsequent evidence of involvement of adjacent organs, lymph nodes or distant sites. This differs from the clinical setting of an apparent "curative" resection later pathologically upstaged following detection of malignant cells extending into adjacent organs, peritoneum, lymph nodes or other distant sites, including liver. This highly selected early stage colon cancer group remains at high risk for subsequent colon polyps and metachronous colon cancer. Precise staging is important, not only for assessing the need for adjuvant chemotherapy, but also for patient selection for continued surveillance. With advanced stages of colon cancer and a more guarded outlook, repeated surveillance should be limited. In future, novel imaging technologies (e.g., confocal endomicroscopy), coupled with increased pathological recognition of high risk markers for lymph node involvement (e.g., "tumor budding") should lead to improved staging and clinical care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it