Aberrant Crypt Foci in the Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aberrant crypt foci (ACF) are the earliest visible neoplastic lesions in the colorectum. The natural history of these lesions and their role in the adenoma-carcinoma sequence are unknown. We studied ACF in a subset of patients randomized to placebo (n = 17), celecoxib (200 mg twice daily; n = 15), or celecoxib (400 mg twice daily; n = 13) in the Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib (APC) trial. Magnification chromoendoscopy was done to identify, count, and biopsy ACF within the rectum at baseline and after 8 to 12 months of treatment. A total of 655 ACF were identified in 45 patients. We examined 70 of these ACF histologically, and all 70 were nondysplastic. Cohort characteristics and APC trial treatment results for substudy patients were similar to those of the overall APC trial. There was no significant modulation of ACF by celecoxib (versus placebo; P = 0.77). Immunohistochemical comparison of ACF with adjacent normal mucosa showed that ACF had an increased proliferative index as determined by Ki-67 (P < 0.0001), but lacked other features of neoplasia such as increased cyclooxygenase-2 expression and microvessel density, nuclear localization of beta-catenin, or decreased expression of the tumor suppressors SMAD4, Estrogen Receptor alpha, or MGMT. Only baseline SMAD4 expression in ACF correlated with posttreatment adenoma recurrence (independent of treatment arm; P = 0.01). The presence or number of nondysplastic ACF did not correlate with a higher risk of synchronous advanced or recurrent adenomas. Our overall results indicated that nondysplastic ACF were not accurate surrogate endpoint biomarkers of recurrent colorectal adenomas in the APC trial.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".