Abstract LB-242: Aberrant crypt foci (ACF) are not surrogate biomarkers of sporadic adenoma prevention with celecoxib: Results from the Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib (APC) trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aberrant crypt foci (ACF) are the earliest visible neoplastic lesions in the colorectum. The natural history of these lesions and their role in the adenoma-carcinoma sequence are unknown. We studied ACF in a subset of patients enrolled in the Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib (APC) Trial to determine whether the presence of ACF in the rectum correlated with that of adenomas in the entire large intestine. Participants were randomized to placebo (n=17), celecoxib 200 mg bid (n=15), or celecoxib 400 mg bid (n=13). Magnification chromoendoscopy (MCE) was performed to identify and biopsy ACF within the rectum at baseline and after 8-12 months of medication use. A total of 670 ACF were identified in 45 patients, and 70 of these were examined histologically. All of the ACF examined were non-dysplastic. Analysis showed no differences in ACF number between baseline and post-treatment studies (8.3±1.0 vs. 6.3±1.1) and no modulation by treatment (celecoxib vs placebo; p=0.77). Immunohistochemical studies showed that ACF contained cells exhibiting increased proliferation, but lacked other features of neoplasia such as increased Cox-2 expression and microvascular density, nuclear localization of β-catenin, or decreased expression of the tumor suppressors SMAD4, estrogen receptor (ERα) or MGMT. Of the secondary markers assessed at baseline, only SMAD4 expression correlated with post-treatment adenoma recurrence. Taken together, these data showed that non-dysplastic ACF are not accurate surrogate endpoint biomarkers of colorectal adenoma risk or NSAID chemoprevention response.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".