Traditional serrated adenoma: an overview of pathology and emphasis on molecular pathogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To provide an overview of the pathology and molecular pathogenesis of traditional serrated adenomas (TSA). Design Describe the morphology and molecules that play a role in their pathogenesis. Results These exuberant polypoid lesions are typified by tall cells with deeply eosinophilic cytoplasm, elongated nuclei bearing delicate chromatin, ectopic crypt foci, deep clefting of the lining mucosa and an overall resemblance to small bowel mucosa. Broadly, TSAs arise via three mechanisms. They may be BRAF mutated and CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP)-high: right sided, mediated through a microvesicular hyperplastic polyp or a sessile serrated adenoma, may also have RNF43 mutations and result in microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancers (CRC). The second pathway that is mutually exclusive of the first is mediated through KRAS mutation with CIMP-low TSAs. These are left-sided TSAs, are not associated with another serrated polyp and result in MSS CRC. These TSAs also have RSPO3, RNF43 and p53 mutations together with aberrant nuclear localisation of β-catenin. Third, there is a smaller group of TSAs that are BRAF and KRAS wild type and arise by as yet unknown molecular events. All TSAs show retention of mismatch repair proteins. Conclusion These are characteristic unusual polyps with a complex molecular landscape.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".