A138 SERRATED POLYPOSIS SYNDROME IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE: A SEQUELAE OF CHRONIC DISEASE ACTIVITY OR NEW WHO PHENOTYPE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is a growing health concern with up to 1 in 125 universal screening program participants meeting diagnostic criteria. Conversely, SPS in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is rarely described in the literature, despite the predisposition for serrated epithelial change and serrated polyps in this population. Purpose To describe a case of World Health Organization (WHO) criterion I SPS in a patient with IBD, and discuss the existing literature on this rare occurrence. Method Case report and review of the literature. Result(s) Case Report A 53-year-old female with ulcerative colitis (UC; Phenotype: Left-sided; Duration of disease: 40 years; Medical therapy: sulfasalazine) undergoing regular endoscopic surveillance was recently found to have multiple serrated-class lesions including 6 in the sigmoid colon ranging between 8-30mm in size; this included 3 sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) between 20-30mm removed by piecemeal cold snare resection without complication and 2 residual large SSLs for staged endoscopic resection. No endoscopic disease activity was appreciated (Mayo 0), with histopathology of the sigmoid colon and rectum demonstrating chronic inactive colitis. Literature Review From 2008 to 2021, there are eleven reported cases of SPS in IBD. Six patients had UC and most were in remission for several decades at the time of SPS diagnosis. Most SPS cases met WHO criteria and fit within described phenotypes. While the case above meets WHO criterion I for SPS, the presence of large distal lesions is atypical, raising the question of whether chronic disease activity contributed to the development of these serrated lesions, given the known predisposition for serrated epithelial change and serrated lesions in patients with colonic IBD. Image Conclusion(s) SPS in patients with IBD is rare. Questions remain about the role of chronic disease activity contributing to the formation of serrated lesions, its clinical relevance, and optimal management strategy. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".