A104 ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS WITHIN TERTIARY GASTROENTEROLOGY PRACTICES: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Adenomatous polyposis (AP) is defined as ≥ 10 cumulative colorectal adenomas. Despite its clinical relevance, its prevalence, genetic implications, and optimal management remains unknown. Aims Evaluate the prevalence and outcomes of AP within a tertiary gastroenterology referral center. Methods Patients with at least 1 adenomatous colorectal polyp removed by 1 of 11 gastroenterologists at a tertiary referral center between 2013-2023 were screened for AP using a validated histopathology database. Patients with a known adenomatous polyposis syndrome and/or previous colorectal surgery prior to referral were excluded from analysis. All patients with AP (defined as ≥ 10 adenomatous colorectal polyps) underwent full chart review. Data were extracted for demographic and clinical outcomes. Results Of 10,603 patients with at least 1 colorectal adenoma, 330 (3.1%) were diagnosed with AP. AP patients were diagnosed over a median of 5 years (IQR 1-9 years) and a median of 3 colonoscopies (IQR 2-4 colonoscopies). The frequencies of an advanced adenoma and colorectal cancer (CRC) were 236 (71.5%) and 23 (7.0%), respectively. 78.2% of CRC diagnosed before or concurrent to AP diagnosis. Genetic analysis was completed in 22 (6.8%) patients, with a deleterious mutation found in 10 (45.4%). 276 (83.6%) patients were managed endoscopically with 24 (7.3%) referred to surgery and 30 (9.1%) discharged due to age. 300 (90.9%) patients had 10-20 adenomas and 30 (9.1%) patients had > 20 adenomas. Patients with > 20 adenomas were more commonly referred to surgery (6, 20% vs. 18, 6%; p = 0.014). There was no difference in the frequency of CRC between groups (21, 7.0% in 10-20 adenomas and 2, 6.7% in >20 adenomas; p=0.195). Conclusions In patients with ≥ 1 colorectal adenoma, the prevalence of AP was 3.1%, with an overall CRC risk of 7.0%. The majority of patients can be successfully managed endoscopically with further evidence needed to delineate appropriate surveillance interval recommendations. Funding Agencies CAG
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".