Clinical, Histologic, and Immunophenotypic Features of Serrated Polyps in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal serrated polyps (SP), which include hyperplastic polyps (HP), sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/P), and traditional serrated adenomas, are not uncommon and have been implicated to play a role in the pathogenesis in a subset of sporadic colorectal carcinomas; however, their significance in patients with prolonged inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains unclear. METHODS: We retrospectively studied the clinicopathologic features, BRAF and β-catenin immunohistochemistry staining patterns in 36 SPs from 28 patients with IBD compared with 40 SPs in patients without IBD. RESULTS: Eleven SSA/Ps and 25 HPs from IBD and site-matched controls were included. SSA/Ps in the study group were slightly more commonly seen in males (55% vs. 41%, P = 0.7) and older patients (55.2 vs. 47.8 years, P = 0.2) compared to patients with HP. They were moderately larger (7.13 mm vs. 4.83 mm, P = 0.14) and more likely located on the right (63.6% vs. 32%, P = 0.46). Smaller percentage of SSA/Ps showed BRAF staining compared to controls (55.6% vs. 73.3%, P = 0.41) and HPs showed similar features (52.0% vs. 54.2%, P = 1). β-catenin was negative in all cases. During follow-up, only one patient in the SSA/P group developed carcinoma 42 months after at the same site and two developed adenoma-like low-grade dysplasia but no patients with HPs had such findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that SPs in IBD share similar clinicodemographic and immunophenotypical features with sporadic SPs. However, patients with SSA/Ps may have a slight increase in risk of developing dysplasia compared to patients with HPs in IBD.
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) | 0.001 | 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".