Colonic mucosubmucosal elongated polyp: report of a series of 14 cases and review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Most colorectal polyps can be reliably assigned to one of the known polyp categories, but a subset of polyps named colonic mucosubmucosal elongated polyps (CMSEPs) do not fall into any of these categories. First described in the Japanese literature, CMSEPs seem to be under-recognized in the Western literature. The aims of this study were to describe the clinicopathological features of 14 CMSEPs, discuss potential pathogenetic mechanisms, and increase awareness of this entity among pathologists. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fourteen pedunculated colorectal polyps that met the histopathological criteria for CMSEP (as described by Matake et al. and Alizart et al.) were assessed (12 males and two females; mean age 59.7 years). Five polyps were located in the sigmoid colon, four in the rectum, two in the descending colon, and three in the colon not otherwise specified. Nine of 14 polyps were discovered incidentally: two of nine on routine screening colonoscopy, two of nine on surveillance colonoscopy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and five of nine upon surgical intervention for carcinoma or IBD. None coexisted with diverticular disease. The polyps were long and slender, varied from 5 to 30 mm in length (mean 15.9 mm), and showed a normal-looking colonic mucosal layer and underlying loose submucosa with thick-walled and congested blood vessels and lymphatics. CONCLUSIONS: CMSEPs show subtle but distinctive pathological features, and occur in normal and diseased colons. Pathologists need to be aware of this entity, to avoid confusion with other more commonly encountered colorectal polyps. With increasing colon cancer screening programmes and surveillance colonoscopy, it is likely that CMSEPs will be encountered more often.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".