Prevalence of Gastroduodenal Polyps in Children With Familial Adenomatous Polyposis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of upper gastrointestinal adenomatous polyps in a cohort of pediatric familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) patients to determine if early screening is warranted. STUDY DESIGN: All 11 pediatric FAP patients diagnosed in Manitoba between January 2012 and December 2019 were recruited. Patient records were examined and data on age of diagnosis, gene mutation, age of first screening endoscopy, number of endoscopies, number of gastric and colonic polyps, associated pathology, medications, symptoms and FAP-related surgeries were extracted and descriptive statistics reported. RESULTS: A total of 11 children were diagnosed with FAP over the study period with a mean age at diagnosis of 6.3 ± 3.2 years with 72.3% males and median follow-up of 4.8 years. The mean age at first gastroscopy was 10.9 ± 2.9 years and 10.8 ± 3.0 years at colonoscopy. Eight patients (72%) had upper gastrointestinal polyps, with adenomatous changes seen in seven of them on pathology. No patients had invasive carcinoma or high-grade dysplasia. All patients developed tubular adenomas on colorectal polyp pathology. Four (36%) patients underwent surgical colectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Early-onset upper gastrointestinal adenomatous polyps in a pediatric FAP are common. Our study provides further data to support consideration of further, large-scale research into the benefit of early endoscopic screening for upper gastrointestinal malignancy in FAP patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".