Submucosal Necrotic Nodule of the Colon: An Enigmatic Entity Potentially Related to <i>Anisakis</i> Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT.—: Discrete submucosal necrotic nodules may rarely manifest as colon polyps. OBJECTIVE.—: To characterize the clinical and pathologic features of this lesion, which has been under-studied in the literature. DESIGN.—: We conducted an international search to compile a series. For each potential case, photomicrographs were centrally reviewed to confirm the diagnosis. We gathered clinical and pathologic information on each confirmed case. RESULTS.—: The final cohort included 25 patients, with 23 having 1 lesion and 2 having several (31 lesions total). Mean patient age was 62 years; 13 patients (52%) were male. Symptoms were nonspecific, although 4 patients (16%) had blood in stool; 14 patients were asymptomatic. Patient history and medications appeared noncontributory. Most cases were located in the right colon (n = 18; 58%). Mean lesion size was 0.4 cm (range, 0.1-1.7 cm). Histology typically showed a centrally necrotic nodule with peripheral fibrosis, chronic inflammation, and sometimes palisading granulomatous inflammation. Percent necrosis ranged from 5% to 95% (average, 70%), and percent fibrosis ranged from 3% to 70% (average, 25%). In 3 cases, degenerated parasitic structures consistent with Anisakis could be seen on hematoxylin-eosin and trichrome special stain. No patient experienced disease recurrence. CONCLUSIONS.—: Submucosal necrotic nodules can present as colon polyps. Most cases are unifocal, and patients do well on follow-up. At least some examples appear to be caused by Anisakis, implicating patient diet. Patients are often asymptomatic, and many cases show no histologic evidence of the causative agent.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".