Serrated Polyps of the Large Intestine: A Morphologic and Molecular Review of an Evolving Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Serrated polyps of the large intestine, including traditional hyperplastic polyps, traditional serrated adenomas, and more recently described sessile serrated adenomas, have gained increased recognition in recent years because of growing evidence that one of these lesions, the sessile serrated adenoma, might be the precursor lesion for some cases of microsatellite unstable colorectal carcinoma. Nevertheless, there has been some reluctance to embrace the concept of sessile serrated adenoma, and numerous diagnostic challenges exist. This article, which grew out of the Roger C. Haggitt Gastrointestinal Pathology Society Forum presented in Vancouver, Canada, March 6, 2004 as part of the annual meeting of the United States-Canadian Academy of Pathology, reviews the morphologic and molecular evidence for the concept of various polyps in the general category of serrated polyps of the large intestine, in particular the lesion known as the sessile serrated adenoma, and provides a conceptual framework for diagnosis of these lesions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".