Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most gastric polyps are fundic gland polyps and hyperplastic polyps. Adenomas, inflammatory fibroid polyps, and neuroendocrine tumors are other types of gastric polyps that occur less frequently. Rarely, a gastric polyp may be associated with a syndrome, including hereditary cancer syndromes. Some of these syndromes are also associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer. We present a case of a 50-year-old woman with known Cowden syndrome who presents with multiple gastric hamartomatous polyps. We then review the clinical, endoscopic, and pathologic features of various syndromes that are associated with gastric polyps. Fundic gland polyp–predominant syndromes include familial adenomatous polyposis, gastric adenocarcinoma and proximal polyposis of the stomach, andMUTYH-associated polyposis, all of which are hereditary cancer syndromes. Gastric hamartomatous polyps are found in patients with juvenile polyposis syndrome, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome,PTENhamartoma tumor syndrome including Cowden syndrome, and Cronkhite-Canada syndrome. Syndromic gastric polyps may be biopsied in patients with a previously established diagnosis of the underlying syndrome, such as surveillance endoscopies in familial adenomatous polyposis. On other occasions, the pathologic assessment of gastric polyps may prompt or contribute to a diagnostic workup of an underlying syndrome in conjunction with other clinical and endoscopic findings.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".