Crohn's-like clinical and pathological manifestations of giant inflammatory polyposis in IBD: A potential diagnostic pitfall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Giant inflammatory polyposis (GIP), characterized by mass-like agglomerations of inflammatory polyps, is a rare complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We reviewed a series of cases of GIP to determine its diagnostic impact on the clinical and pathologic distinction between ulcerative colitis (UC) and colonic Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: All colons with GIP resected over a 13-year period were identified prospectively and the corresponding clinical and pathologic records were reviewed. RESULTS: Twelve cases of GIP were identified, accounting for 0.8% of colectomies for IBD during the same time interval. Preoperatively, 6 (50%) patients were diagnosed with UC, 2 (17%) with CD and 4 (33%) with indeterminate colitis (IC). Postoperatively, 6 of the diagnoses (50%) were revised based on strict histopathologic criteria: all 4 diagnoses of IC to UC, one diagnosis of CD to UC, and one diagnosis of UC to CD, for a total of 10 diagnoses of UC (83%) and two of CD (17%). Significantly, 7 of 10 cases with postoperative diagnoses of UC (70%) had Crohn's-like transmural inflammation exclusively within the polyposis segments attributed to fecal entrapment and stasis and accounting for the Crohn's-like clinical complications in these cases. CONCLUSIONS: This case series of GIP, the largest reported from a single center, highlights the high rate of Crohn's-like clinical and pathological manifestations of GIP and their potential to confound the accurate classification of patients with IBD. A diagnosis of UC should not be amended to CD based on the findings of the polyposis segment alone.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".