A106 THE EPIDEMIOLOGY OF COMPLEX COLONIC POLYPS: A POPULATION BASED STUDY OF THE SOUTHWEST ONTARIO COLONOSCOPY COHORT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Complex polyps are well recognized amongst endoscopists, but its definition varies in the literature and from one endoscopist to another. Despite its clinical importance, the epidemiology of complex polyps is poorly understood. Aims To assess the epidemiology of complex polyps on a population level, and in FIT positive individuals. Methods The Southwest Ontario Colonoscopy cohort is a prospective database consisting of all adult patients undergoing colonoscopy at 21 hospitals in Southwest Ontario. Data is collected through a mandatory quality assurance form completed by the endoscopist after each procedure. All outpatient adult colonoscopies for any indication were included. Incomplete colonoscopies, repeat procedures, and poor preparation colonoscopies were excluded. A manual review of the colonoscopy report was completed in cases where the description of the complex polyps was missing. The primary outcomes were the prevalence of complex polyps in the cohort, and in FIT positive patients. Secondary outcomes include endoscopic description of the complex polyp, rates of attempted and complete resection, and identification of possible associations between patient and endoscopist factors with complex polyp detection and removal. A multivariate logistic regression model was generated to assess for factors associated with complex polyp detection. Results From February 2019 to December 2020, 43389 colonoscopies were included, of which 1459 were for FIT positive patients. 2294 patients had a complex polyp, with a prevalence of 5.3% [95% CI 0.051–0.055], while the prevalence was 17.1% [95% CI 0.152–0.191] in the FIT positive cohort. Compared to average-risk patients undergoing colonoscopy for colon cancer screening, the odds ratio (OR) of detecting a complex polyp in individuals with positive FIT was 4.12 [95% CI 3.42–4.98, p<0.0001]. Among complex polyps,1324 (57.7%) were described as large (>2cm) and 1290 (56%) described as sessile. Of 2294 patients with complex polyps,1992 (86.8%) [95% CI 0.855–0.882] underwent a removal attempt, with successful complete removal as determined by the endoscopist achieved in 1905 patients (95.6%) [95% CI 0.947–0.965]. Compared to gastroenterologists, general surgeons and internists were less likely to detect a complex polyp, OR 0.67 [95% CI 0.61–0.73, p <0.0001] and 0.36 [95% CI 0.20–0.67, p=0.0011] respectively. Trainee involvement was associated with higher rate of complex polyp detection, OR 1.20 [95% CI 1.07–1.35, p=0.0022]. Females were less likely to have a complex polyp compared to males, OR 0.71 [95% CI 0.65–0.77, p<0.0001]. Conclusions Complex polyps are more prevalent than previously reported in the literature, with a high prevalence among the FIT positive population compared to other indications of colonoscopy. Funding Agencies None
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".