MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335746692 · doi:10.1055/s-0033-1344861

Recognizing sessile serrated adenomas/polyps: a diagnostic challenge for pathologists

2013· letter· en· W2335746692 on OpenAlexaff
Runjan Chetty

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdenomaHyperplastic PolypLesionCarcinogenesisChromosome instabilityPathologyInternal medicineColorectal cancerCancerColonoscopyGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past 15 years, it has become increasingly clear that a significant proportion of colorectal cancers arise from a serrated precursor lesion rather than the conventional adenoma. These lesions are known as sessile serrated adenoma or polyps (SSA/P) and are mediated by a different molecular (serrated) pathway to the chromosomal instability pathway. Several researchers have suggested that the serrated pathway is an accelerated one leading to carcinogenesis. For these reasons, it is imperative that both gastroenterologists and pathologists are not only aware of the existence of SSA/P, but are able to make the correct diagnosis and, subsequently, to manage the patient appropriately. It must be acknowledged that pathologists have been slow to recognize SSA/P and this is largely due to lack of awareness. For those who are aware of the lesion, some confusion has prevailed about the diagnostic criteria and the association with dysplasia. Recently, the American College of Gastroenterology established diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of SSA/P [ 1 ]. Despite this and other previous publications highlighting histologic criteria, there remains poor recognition of the entity [ 2 ] [ 3 ]. Over and above awareness (which is increasing), there are technical factors that often impede a pathologist’s ability to provide a confident diagnosis of SSA/P. As highlighted in the paper by Morales et al. in this issue of Endoscopy , orientation of the tissue section is an important rate-limiting step in making the diagnosis of SSA/P and distinguishing it from a hyperplastic polyp [ 4 ]. Due to obliquity of sectioning, the architectural features that are critical for the diagnosis of SSA/P are not readily apparent despite serial or stepwise sections through the tissue. The pathologist is then left with the unsatisfactory diagnosis of an “indeterminate or unclassifiable serrated” lesion, that may be an SSA/P or a hyperplastic polyp. The study by Morales et al. advocates and recommends an easy and inexpensive way to ensure that proper orientation can be achieved in a larger proportion of cases. They have assessed a significant number of SSA/P specimens using an orientation score and also showed an almost 35 % increased diagnosis rate of SSA/Ps using their modified “envelope” technique compared with routine practice [ 4 ]. Improved orientation will eliminate some of the equivocal or indeterminate diagnoses of SSA/P, thus ensuring a more accurate diagnosis on which the clinician can act to determine surveillance protocols.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0190.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopySame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207