A Focused Review on Advances in Risk Stratification of Malignant Polyps
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".