Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The pathological distinction between hyperplastic polyps and sessile serrated adenoma/polyps of the right colon is often difficult and may result in misdiagnosed polyps. OBJECTIVE: To review the proportion and accuracy of serrated polyp diagnosis within a one year retrospective review of colorectal polyp samples, focusing on hyperplastic polyps of the right colon, using criteria set forth by previous studies. MATERIALS & METHODS: 4096 Winnipeg patient cases from January 2009 to December 2009 were reviewed. The proportion of sessile serrated adenoma/polyps, traditional serrated adenoma and serrated adenoma were determined in the patient population. Additionally, pathological morphological variables were reassessed by two study pathologists to determine the frequency of sessile serrated adenoma/polyp initially diagnosed as hyperplastic polyps within the right colon. RESULTS: Approximately 5% of all polyps in the patient population where diagnosed as non-hyperplastic serrated polyps (SSA/P, TSA and SA) and 12.5% as hyperpalstic polyps. Of the non-hyperplastic serrated polyps, a majority were diagnosed as SA. Upon reassessment of right sided HP (n=121), 34% were re-classified as SSA/P. CONCLUSIONS: Winnipeg pathologists diagnose non-hyperplastic serrated polyps with a frequency similar to literature, but are not fully utilizing modern terminology, as majority of non-hyperplastic serrated polyps are reported as SA without further categorisation. Furthermore, a significant proportion of right sided hyperplastic polyps could be re-classified as sessile serrated adenomas on review. Given the difficulty in distinguishing sessile serrated adenomas from hyperplastic polyps, closer endoscopic surveillance should be considered for all individuals with all serrated polyps (including hyperplastic polyps) in the right colon or alternatively all such polyps should be routinely reviewed by two pathologists.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".