Colorectal sessile serrated lesion with large size or synchronous neoplasm: a prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal sessile serrated lesion (SSL) with synchronous neoplasm or large size are linked to higher risk of cancer, but their characteristics are unclear. METHODS: We prospectively included consecutive colorectal hyperplasic polyp and SSL collected at our institution from August 2011 to August 2012. The following data were collected and analyzed: age, gender, polyp site, aggregated polyp size, history of polyp, and synchronous neoplasm. RESULTS: We collected 437 specimens including 353 (80.8%) hyperplasic polyp and 84 (19.2%) SSL. Compared with hyperplasic polyp, SSL was independently associated with proximal colon [odds ratio (OR) 3.61, P< 0.001], larger size (OR 3.98, P< 0.001), but not history of polyp, age or gender. Large SSL (≥1 vs <1 cm) was associated with polyp site (P= 0.035) and synchronous advanced adenoma and cancer (P< 0.001). SSL with synchronous adenoma and cancer were more likely found in males (OR 1.91, P= 0.001), elderly (OR 1.02, P= 0.033), and patients with the index polyp in proximal colon (OR 1.32, P= 0.022), but not related to history of adenoma and cancer. Moreover, synchronous adenoma, SSL and cancer were independently associated with male gender (OR 1.90, P< 0.001), but surprisingly not older age, histology of index polyp (SSL vs hyperplasic polyp), index-polyp site or history of adenoma and cancer. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study shows male gender is associated with both synchronous adenoma and cancer, and synchronous adenoma, SSL and cancer, while index polyp site is associated with synchronous adenoma and cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".