A31 DYSPLASIA IN COLONIC POLYPS: PREPARING FOR A RESECT AND DISCARD STRATEGY IN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background While diminutive colorectal polyps have a negligible cancer risk, current management involves resecting and submitting all polyps for histological assessment. This is a substantial burden and cost to the healthcare system. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has recommended a “resect-and-discard strategy” without histological evaluation as an acceptable strategy when high-confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal polyps is achieved. However, a resect and discard strategy has not been adopted yet in Canada. Aims The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence and characteristics of polyps removed at our center based on size. Methods We retrospectively reviewed colonoscopies and pathology reports at Kingston Health Sciences Center from January to December 2020. Based on the pathology report, polyps were classified as diminutive (1-5mm), small (6-9mm) or large (ampersand:003E or = 10mm). We recorded histology and the presence of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or cancer. Results Out of 2218 colonoscopies, 2945 polyps were removed. 1703 (57.8%) polyps were diminutive with only two (0.1%) having focal HGD and none having cancer. 699 (23.7%) polyps were classified as small with three (0.4%) having HGD and none having cancer. The large polyp group had 543 (18.4%) polyps, of which 87 (16%) showed HGD and 15 (2.8%) exhibited cancer. The specific histologic findings are shown in Table 1. Endoscopy reports specifically mentioned concern of dysplasia in one out of the five polyps with HGD in the diminutive and small groups. Conclusions As expected, most polyps were either diminutive or small (81.5%). Neither of these groups had cancer and only 5 had HGD. Adopting a resect and discard strategy at our center for diminutive polyps has the potential for significant cost savings with negligible risk of missing a high-risk polyp. The next steps would involve assessing optical diagnosis sensitivity and specificity for diminutive and small polyps. Histological characterization of polyps within each size range 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".