Management of Colorectal Neoplasia in IBD Patients: Current Practice and Future Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] patients are at increased risk of developing colorectal neoplasia [CRN]. In this review, we aim to provide an up-to-date overview and future perspectives on CRN management in IBD. Advances in endoscopic surveillance and resection techniques have resulted in a shift towards endoscopic management of neoplastic lesions in place of surgery. Endoscopic treatment is recommended for all CRN if complete resection is feasible. Standard [cold snare] polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection should be performed depending on lesion complexity [size, delineation, morphology, surface architecture, submucosal fibrosis/invasion] to maximise the likelihood of complete resection. If complete resection is not feasible, surgical treatment options should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team. Whereas [sub]total and proctocolectomy play an important role in management of endoscopically unresectable CRN, partial colectomy may be considered in a subgroup of patients in endoscopic remission with limited disease extent without other CRN risk factors. High synchronous and metachronous CRN rates warrant careful mucosal visualisation with shortened intervals for at least 5 years after treatment of CRN.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".