Há diferenças endoscópicas e histopatológicas entre lesões serrilhadas superficiais nas suas fases iniciais?
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
Introduction: Serrated lesions are considered precursors of colorectal adenocarcinomas. Studying them in their initial phases is important when thinking about cancer prevention, when they are hyperplastic lesions, or sessile serrated lesions. Objective: To carry out an integrative review of the literature to compare the endoscopic and histopathological characteristics in the initial phases of the disease, with the intention to help understand colorectal cancer. Methods: Integrative literature review based on existing analysis material on the digital platforms SciELO – Scientific Electronic Library Online, Google Scholar, Pubmed and Scopus. The beginning was the search with the following descriptors: “serrated sessile lesions, colorectal carcinoma, superficial lesions”, with AND or OR search, considering the title and/or abstract , and subsequently including only those with the highest correlation for reading the full texts. Results: 39 articles were included. Conclusion: The majority of superficially elevated serrated lesions measuring more than 5 mm and resected by colonoscopies are hyperplastic. They occur throughout the colon and rectum, while the serrated sessiles are preferentially located in the proximal colon. Hyperplastic ones generally do not present dysplasias and sessile serrated ones can have them intensely.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 it