Demographic and pathological characteristics of serrated polyps of colorectum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To characterize a series of colorectal polyps, focusing on the clinicopathological features of serrated adenoma (SA), mixed polyp (MP) and the recently recognized sessile serrated adenoma (SSA). METHODS AND RESULTS: Eight hundred and ninety-one conventional adenomas (AD), 298 hyperplastic polyps (HP), 27 SSA, 10 MP and 24 traditional SA were obtained from patients during colonoscopic examination. SSA were more likely to be proximally located than other polyps. All SA, MP and SSA and a randomly selected subset of HP (n = 61) and ADs (n = 93) were assessed for expression of mucin, MLH1, MGMT, and Ki67. SSA expressed more MUC5AC than either HP or SA. Loss of MLH1 was not observed in any serrated polyps and in only one AD. Loss of MGMT occurred in 13% of AD, and showed no correlation with histological type, size or location. Loss of MGMT occurred in 24% of SSA, MP and SA (combined), and was more frequent in proximal lesions and larger lesions. SSA had a higher proliferative index than HP. In MP, the proliferative index of the non-dysplastic component was closer to HP than SSA, while the dysplastic component was intermediate between SA and AD. CONCLUSIONS: SSA differ from other serrated polyps of colorectum in terms of location, morphology and immunophenotype.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".