A123 THE EFFECTS OF INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE ON THE MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOMES OF COMPLEX POLYPS IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING SURVEILLANCE COLONOSCOPY: A RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The influence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on the outcomes of complex polyps remains an area of uncertainty. Aims To investigate the impact of IBD on the management and outcomes of complex polyps during surveillance colonoscopy. Methods This retrospective cohort study utilized a prospectively collected database, involving patients who underwent surveillance colonoscopy for colorectal cancer or IBD surveillance who were identified to have complex polyps between February 2019 and December 2020 in Southwestern Ontario. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, medication history, polyp description and management were analyzed. The data were summarized in median and interquartile range for continuous variable and frequency and percentage for categorical variables. Characteristics between IBD and non-IBD were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Results 383 patients were included in the study, of which 27 individuals had IBD (5 Crohn's disease, 13 ulcerative colitis, and 9 indeterminate colitis). Patients with IBD were generally younger than their non-IBD counterparts (median age 61 vs 67 respectively). No significant differences were identified in terms of rates of complete polyp removal (17.70 % vs 22.22 %, pampersand:003C0.602), residual polyps after resection (76.97% vs 70.37%, pampersand:003C0.476), repeat removal attempts (84.27% vs 74.07%, pampersand:003C0.179), or surgical intervention (88.76% vs 88.89%, pampersand:003C0.99). A higher proportion of IBD patients were managed by gastroenterologists vs other endoscopists (81.48% vs. 40.17%, p ampersand:003C 0.001). No significant differences in complex polyp characteristics were observed, except in difficult locations of complex polyps were more common in the non-IBD cohort (55.34% vs 25.93%, pampersand:003C0.004). Conclusions In this retrospective cohort study, IBD does not appear to influence the management or outcome of complex polyps. Larger studies are required given the small IBD cohort size in this study. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".