From traditional serrated adenoma to tubulovillous adenoma and beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well established that colorectal cancer develops from a series of precursor epithelial polyps, including tubular adenomas, villous/tubulovillous adenomas (VA/TVA), sessile serrated adenomas (SSA) and traditional serrated adenomas (TSA). Of these, TSAs are least common and account for only 5% of all serrated polyps. TSAs are characterised by the presence of a "pinecone-like" architecture, granular eosinophilic cytoplasm, luminal serrations, ectopic crypt foci (ECF) and elongated, pencillate nuclei. However, the distinct slit-like luminal serrations, reminiscent of small bowel mucosa, appear to be the most unique and reproducible feature to distinguish TSAs from other polyps. There is a contention that TSAs are not inherently dysplastic and that the majority do not show cytological atypia. Two types of dysplasia are associated with TSA. Serrated dysplasia is less well recognised and less commonly encountered than adenomatous dysplasia. In addition, it is now becoming increasingly evident that TSAs can be admixed with HP, SSA and VA/TVA. At a genetic level, polyps may switch phenotype as they accumulate genetic changes, evolving from a serrated pathway to a more conventional one, which could be the basis for a spectrum theory starting out with a TSA with serration and ECF evolving into a TSA with conventional dysplasia and, eventually, to a well-developed conventional adenoma. Nevertheless, there is an exigency for future studies to provide further illumination and bridge the gaps in our present understanding.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".