Idiopathic multitudinous fundic gland polyposis: A new disease and a management dilemma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two patients with idiopathic multitudinous fundic gland polyposis, a hitherto undescribed condition, were reported. They presented incidentally with a multitude of fundic gland polyps, 52 and 147, without a family history of polyposis, and these polyps were not attributable to the chronic use of proton pump inhibitors. All polyps were removed by hot-biopsy polypectomy, and each was individually subjected to pathological examination, which showed no evidence of dysplasia. When confronted with gastric polyps of clinically undetermined origin, endoscopists would, to exclude dysplasia, usually resect all if they are few and sample some and survey the others periodically if they are numerous. The condition reported presents a management dilemma: Because the number of the polyps is such that they are manageable by total polypectomy, should this be carried out, despite the labor intensiveness involved, to exclude dysplasia, and are the polyps a variant of syndromic polyposis and therefore carry a malignant potential and inform the need for periodic surveillance and to investigate the patient's kindred? The frequency of this condition and whether it is truly not associated with dysplasia require further studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| 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".