Is serum protein electrophoresis useful in separating the "high risk group" in patients with colonic polyps?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adenomas have the highest potential or clinical value from among colonic polyps of developing into adenocarcinoma. The aims of this paper are: to establish criteria to identify the high risk group of patients in a group of patients with colonic polyps, to work out a simple scheme for follow-up care after endoscopic polypectomy, and to establish indications for surgery. The usefulness of determination of electrophoresis of serum proteins has been specially analysed to detect early development of malignant growths in patients with colonic polyps regarding alfa-1/alfa-2 and alfa/beta. 67 cases - 21 women, 46 men were tested. Follow-up endoscopy with the electrophoresis was performed after 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months after polypectomy. 97 polyps were resected with endoscopy in 67 patients. 38 patients (39.17%), those constituting the high risk group, were selected. Included were all polyps with grade II and III of cellular differentiation. CONCLUSIONS: 1) alfa-1/alfa-2 and alfa/beta is a helpful test in identifying the high risk group among patients with colonic polyps and it can be used as a screening test, 2) the determination of beta-2-macroglobuline is not useful in the diagnosis of this group of patients, 3) the electrophoresis of proteins should be the first test to perform on patients with colonic polyps. The relation of electrophoresis to endoscopic polypectomy aids evaluations of patients specially predisposed to malignant.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".