Increased Colorectal Neoplasia Risk in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Serrated Polyps with Dysplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of serrated polyps on the advanced colorectal neoplasia (CRN) risk in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients is unknown. Serrated polyps are histologically categorized as hyperplastic polyps (HPs), sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), and traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs). AIMS: We aimed (1) to characterize the serrated polyps in IBD patients, (2) to identify factors associated with the presence of serrated polyps in IBD, and (3) to assess the CRN risk in IBD patients with serrated polyps. METHODS: We established a retrospective cohort of IBD patients with and without colonic serrated polyps. Cox-regression analysis with time-dependent variables was used to compare advanced CRN risk in IBD patients with and without serrated polyps. RESULTS: Of the 621 enrolled IBD patients, 198 had a serrated polyp (92 HPs, 88 SSLs without dysplasia, 13 SSLs with dysplasia, and 5 TSAs). Independent factors associated with serrated polyps were ulcerative colitis (UC) (odds ratio (OR) 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19-2.62, p = 0.005), male gender (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.11-2.40, p = 0.013), and older age (per year increase, OR 1.06, 95%CI 1.05-1.08, p < 0.001). TSAs and SSLs with dysplasia were risk factors for subsequent advanced CRN (HR 13.51, 95% CI 3.11-58.68, p < 0.001), while HPs (HR 1.98, 95% CI 0.46-8.60, p = 0.36) and SSLs without dysplasia (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.11-6.88, p-0.89) did not impact the subsequent advanced CRN risk. CONCLUSIONS: UC, male gender and older age were associated with the presence of serrated polyps. The majority of serrated polyps (91%) were HPs and SSL without dysplasia and did not affect the CRC risk. However TSAs and SSLs with dysplasia, representing a small subgroup of serrated polyps (9%), were associated with subsequent advanced CRN.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".