Prevention by daily soluble aspirin of colorectal adenoma recurrence: 4-year results of the APACC randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aspirin inhibits colorectal carcinogenesis. In a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial, daily soluble aspirin significantly reduced recurrence of colorectal adenomas at 1-year follow-up. In this study the results of daily intake of low-dose aspirin on polyp recurrence at 4-year follow-up are presented. METHODS: 272 patients (naive for chronic aspirin use) with colorectal adenomas were randomly assigned to treatment with lysine acetylsalicylate 160 mg/day (n=73) or 300 mg/day (n=67) or placebo (n=132) for 4 years. The primary endpoints were adenoma recurrence and adenomatous polyp burden at year 4, comparing aspirin at either dose with placebo. The same endpoints were also assessed at year 1 or 4 (last colonoscopy performed for each patient). RESULTS: At the final year 4 colonoscopy the analysis included 185 patients (55 receiving aspirin 160 mg/day, 47 aspirin 300 mg/day and 83 placebo). There was no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one recurrent adenoma between patients receiving aspirin at either dose and those treated with placebo (42/102 (41%) vs 33/83 (40%); NS) or in the adenomatous polyp burden (3.1 ± 5.8 mm vs 3.4 ± 6.2 mm; NS). Also, the proportion of patients with at least one advanced recurrent adenoma did not differ (10/102 [corrected] (10%) in the aspirin group vs 7/83 (8.4%) [corrected] in the placebo group; NS). CONCLUSION: Daily low-dose aspirin decreased adenoma recurrence significantly at 1 year but not at year 4. This discrepancy might be explained by a differential effect of aspirin according to the natural history of the polyp. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT 00224679.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".