Prevention and treatment of recurrence after endoscopic resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minimally invasive endoscopic resection techniques are the recommended first-line treatment strategy for the majority of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps, with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as a predominant resection modality due to its efficacy, efficiency, safety, and cost-effectiveness. A limitation of EMR is recurrence, which has historically occurred in 15%-20% of lesions. In the past 10 years, a number of effective mitigating strategies have been developed, including margin thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation, argon plasma coagulation (APC), and hybrid-APC, alongside margin marking pre-resection. Moreover, techniques for effective recurrence management have also been developed. Herein, we appraise existing evidence on the frequency of recurrence, reasonings behind recurrence formation, as well as recurrence mitigating strategies and the effectiveness of recurrence management.
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.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it