Non-optical polyp-based resect and discard strategy: A prospective clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Post-polypectomy surveillance intervals are currently determined based on pathology results. AIM: To evaluate a polyp-based resect and discard model that assigns surveillance intervals based solely on polyp number and size. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective colonoscopies at the Montreal University Medical Center were enrolled prospectively. The polyp-based strategy was used to assign the next surveillance interval using polyp size and number. Surveillance intervals were also assigned using optical diagnosis for small polyps (< 10 mm). The primary outcome was surveillance interval agreement between the polyp-based model, optical diagnosis, and the pathology-based reference standard using the 2020 United States Multi-Society Task Force guidelines. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of reduction in required histopathology evaluations and proportion of immediate post-colonoscopy recommendations provided to patients. RESULTS: 76.1% for optical diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The polyp-based strategy achieved almost perfect surveillance interval agreement compared with pathology-based assignments, significantly reduced the number of required pathology evaluations, and provided most patients with immediate surveillance interval recommendations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".