MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406152313 · doi:10.3390/jcm14020333

The Importance of Post-Inflammatory Polyps (PIPs) in Colorectal Cancer Surveillance in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

2025· review· en· W4406152313 on OpenAlexaff
Panu Wetwittayakhlang, Talat Bessissow, Péter L. Lakatos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerInflammatory bowel diseaseInflammatory Bowel DiseasesCancerInternal medicineGastroenterologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), encompassing Ulcerative Colitis (UC) and Crohn's Disease (CD), are chronic inflammatory disorders affecting the gastrointestinal tract. The association between IBD and colorectal cancer (CRC) is well-documented. Multiple factors have been identified as contributors to the risk of developing CRC in patients with IBD, including duration of disease, disease extension, family history of CRC, co-existance of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), and potentially the presence of post-inflammatory polyps (PIPs). PIPs, often referred to as pseudopolyps, are polypoid structures that emerge as a result of severe mucosal inflammation. While their presence has been linked to greater disease severity, the role of PIPs in increasing CRC risk remains controversial. Increasing evidence suggests an association between post-inflammatory polyps (PIPs) and the risk of colorectal neoplasia, with PIPs potentially serving as an indicator of this risk through a history of enhanced inflammation. PIPs may also be linked to a distinct patient phenotype, including the presence of other known risk factors. More recent studies suggest that the risk burden (characterized by a high number or by large polyps) may be important. However, the evidence remains inconsistent, with some studies showing no clear association between PIPs and CRC risk after adjusting for other factors, including histological inflammation. In contrast, the data suggest a low rate of malignant transformation of the PIPs themselves. This narrative review aims to summarize the latest evidence regarding the relationship between PIPs and CRC in IBD, with a focus on UC. While some studies suggest that PIPs may serve as markers of higher disease severity and inflammation, their direct contribution to CRC risk remains unclear. Further research is needed to explore the inflammatory and carcinogenic pathways in patients with PIPs to better understand their role in colorectal cancer (CRC) development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→