A Focused Review on Advances in Risk Stratification of Malignant Polyps
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in both men and women in the United States, with most cases arising from precursor adenomatous polyps. Colorectal malignant polyps are defined as cancerous polyps that consist of tumor cells invading through the muscularis mucosae into the underlying submucosa (pT1 tumor). It has been reported that approximately 0.5-8.3% of colorectal polyps are malignant polyps, and the potential for lymph node metastasis in these polyps ranges from 8.5% to 16.1%. Due to their clinical significance, recognition of malignant polyps is critical for clinical teams to make treatment decisions and establish appropriate surveillance schedules after local excision of the polyps. There is a rapidly developing interest in malignant polyps within the literature as a result of an increasing number of identifiable adverse histologic features and recent advancements in endoscopic treatment techniques. The purpose of this paper is to have a focused review of the recent histopathologic literature of malignant polyps.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it