Serrated polyps and polyposis of the colon: a brief review for surgeon endoscopists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Serrated polyps (SPs) were once considered benign, clinically unimportant lesions. However, it is now recognized that through the serrated neoplasia pathway (SNP), SPs play a role in the development of 15%-30% of cases of colorectal cancers (CRC). Furthermore, a high proportion of postcolonoscopy CRCs are believed to arise from SNP. Serrated polyps are classified into hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated lesions, sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia, traditionally serrated adenomas, and unclassified serrated adenoma, each with a distinct morphological and molecular profile. Despite improved understanding, SPs remain a clinical challenge owing to evolving terminology, frequent pathologic misclassification, endoscopic underdetection, and high rates of incomplete removal. Surgeon endoscopists and surgeons who perform colorectal procedures will undoubtedly come across patients with SPs, and this paper summarizes some of the clinical challenges they will encounter. We also discuss the diagnosis and management of patients with serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".