Recurrence and Carcinogenetic Rates of Colorectal Polyps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: to determin the recurrence rate of benign recto-colonic polyps in a 5-year interval, and compare the development rate of intrapolypoid carcinomatous lesions in polypectomized versus nonpolypectomized subjects. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The recurrence rate of polyps increased annually from 5 to 12.5%; the highest rate was noted in the last two years. The five-year cumulative risk of neoplastic lesions was 73% in patients without polypectomy and 20% among those with endoscopic resection (p 0.05). Comparing the recurrence rate of benign lesions (60%) in patients without neoplastic findings with the recurrence rate of adenomas in patients with benign lesions (40%), a higher risk of recurrence was found in the first category, and seemed to be influenced by the personal history of pre-existing adenomatous lesions. CONCLUSION: an increased risk of colorectal polyps recurrence was reported during five year follow up; moreover, during the first three years an increased risk of malignant transformation was observed among cases in which endoscopic resection was not feasible when compared to those in which complete excision was feasible.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".