Sessile Serrated Adenoma (SSA) vs. Traditional Serrated Adenoma (TSA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The morphologic distinction between various serrated polyps of the colorectum may be challenging. The distinction between sessile serrated adenoma (SSA) and traditional serrated adenoma (TSA) may be difficult using currently available criteria mostly based on cytologic characteristics. We have evaluated 66 serrated polyps including 29 SSA, 18 TSA, and 19 hyperplastic polyps for overall shape of the polyps, architectural features of individual crypts, the presence of eosinophilic cytoplasm, size and distribution of the proliferation and maturation zones, as well as Ki-67 and CK20 expression. The extent of the expression of CK20 and Ki-67 could not distinguish between the 3 types of serrated polyps, but the distribution of their expression was very helpful and differences were statistically significant. The distribution of Ki-67+ cells was the single most helpful distinguishing feature of the serrated polyp type (P<0.0001, chi test). Hyperplastic polyps had regular, symmetric, and increased Ki-67 expression. SSA had irregular, asymmetric, and highly variable expression of Ki-67. TSA had low Ki-67 expression, which was limited to "ectopic crypts" and admixed tubular adenomalike areas. In serrated polyps, ectopic crypt formation (ECF) defined by the presence of ectopic crypts with their bases not seated adjacent to the muscularis mucosae was nearly exclusive to TSA and was found in all cases, while the presence of cytologic atypia and eosinophilia of the cytoplasm were characteristic, but not limited to TSA. No evidence of ECF, but nevertheless abnormal distribution of proliferation zone was characteristic of SSA, whereas HP had neither. The presence of the ECF defines TSA in a more rigorous fashion than previous diagnostic criteria and also explains the biologic basis of exuberant protuberant growth associated with TSA and the lack of such growth in SSA. Recognition of this phenomenon may also help in exploring the genetic and molecular basis for differences between SSA and TSA, because these architectural abnormalities may well be a reflection of abnormalities in genetically programmed mucosal development.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".