Prevalence and Anatomic Distribution of Serrated and Adenomatous Lesions in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps) and traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs) have not been well characterized in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This study assesses the prevalence and anatomic distribution of SSA/Ps, TSAs, and conventional adenomas/dysplasia (Ad/Ds) in IBD patients.Methods. IBD patients with serrated, adenomatous, or hyperplastic lesions between 2005 and 2009 were identified in the regional tertiary-care hospital database. Clinicopathological information was reviewed and the histology of biopsies was reevaluated.Results. Ninety-six Ad/Ds, 25 SSA/Ps, and 4 TSAs were identified in 83 patients. Compared to Ad/Ds, serrated lesions were more prevalent in females ( p=0.046 ). The prevalence of Ad/Ds was 4.95%, SSA/Ps was 1.39%, and TSAs was 0.31%. No relationship was identified between lesion type and IBD type. Comparing all IBD patients, the distribution of lesion types was significantly different ( p=0.02 ) with Ad/Ds more common distally, SSA/Ps more common proximally, and TSAs evenly distributed. Among Crohn’s disease (CD) patients, a similar distribution difference was noted ( p<0.001 ). However, ulcerative colitis (UC) patients had a uniform distribution of lesion types ( p=0.320 ).Conclusions. IBD patients have a lower prevalence of premalignant lesions compared to the general population, and the anatomic distribution of lesions differed between CD and UC patients. These findings may indicate an interaction between lesion and IBD pathogenesis with potential clinical implications.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".