Colorectal neoplasia surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performing colorectal neoplasia surveillance in persons with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that is both clinically effective and cost effective is among the greatest challenges facing endoscopists who care for this population. While heightened colorectal cancer (CRC) risk has long been recognized among persons with IBD, this risk has been declining over time, with recent reports suggesting no more than a 1.5–2-fold higher risk compared to age and sex matched members of the general population. Nonetheless, given that CRC still occurs at a higher rate in this population, current surveillance strategies are inadequate for some persons. Conversely, 80–90% of persons with IBD had no neoplastic lesions identified during colonoscopy surveillance, suggesting that many persons with IBD are unnecessarily exposed to the risks of colonoscopy, with society bearing these excess costs.
 The purpose of colorectal neoplasia surveillance is to reduce the burden of CRC and CRC-related death in the IBD population. Societal guidelines recommend initiating colorectal neoplasia screening with colonoscopy in all persons with colorectal IBD involving at least the rectosigmoid (or at least 1/3 of the colorectum if accompanied by discontinuous inflammation) at 8–10 years following disease diagnosis and continuing lifelong surveillance every 1–5 years. Major factors influencing surveillance frequency include historical disease severity, extent of colorectal inflammation, chronic post-inflammatory changes, family history of CRC, history of colorectal neoplasm, primary sclerosing cholangitis, prior colonoscopy findings, and adequacy of prior surveillance. All guidelines further recommend targeted sampling or resection of suspicious visible abnormalities, and some societies continue to recommend extensive non-targeted biopsies to detect “invisible” neoplasia, particularly if other adjunctive optical modalities, such as dye-spray chromoendoscopy (DCE) or virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE), are not performed, or if the mucosa is poorly visualized, such as in areas of significant inflammation, post-inflammatory polyposis, or poor bowel preparation. Most societies now advocate for DCE or VCE as primary screening tools for IBD neoplasia surveillance or, at a minimum, as alternative modalities to traditional white light colonoscopy with non-targeted biopsies where resources and expertise exists.
 However, there are no prospective studies demonstrating a reduction in the incidence of CRC or of death from CRC with current surveillance strategies in persons with IBD. Furthermore, observations from large retrospective studies are also conflicting. A Cochrane analysis of 3 studies in persons with UC did not find a significant mortality benefit for current surveillance strategies. Considering that IBD afflicts many persons at a young age, is rising in prevalence in Canada and globally, and requires intensive lifelong surveillance , the amount of endoscopy resources directed toward IBD surveillance is potentially enormous. Increasing demands on colonoscopy resources from expansion of population-based CRC screening programs and an aging population are likely to challenge the ability to continue to provide intensive surveillance to all persons with IBD. Optimizing delivery of limited colonoscopy resources will thus be essential to maintain effective CRC prevention programs in this population.
 Current standards for neoplasia surveillance in IBD have been recently updated. Shah and Itzkowitz authored a comprehensive review that includes epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of colorectal neoplasia, along with a chart that compares surveillance recommendations put forward by multiple societies. The present review will highlight new evidence influencing neoplasia surveillance and provide practical approaches for surveillance and management of neoplastic lesions in the IBD population.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it