Look Out before Polypectomy in Patients with Diverticular Disease – A Case of a Large, Inverted Diverticulum of the Colon Resembling a Pedunculated Polyp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diverticular disease of the colon may be responsible for abdominal symptoms requiring colonoscopy, which may reveal the presence of concomitant polyps. A polyp found during colonoscopy in patients with colonic diverticular disease may be removed by endoscopic polypectomy with electrosurgical snare, a procedure associated with an incidence of perforation of less than 0.05%. The risk of such a complication may be higher in the event of an inverted colonic diverticulum, which may be misinterpreted as a polypoid lesion at colonoscopy. To date, fewer than 20 cases of inverted colonic diverticula, diagnosed at colonoscopy or following air contrast barium enema, have been reported in the literature. The present report describes a 68-year-old woman who underwent a screening colonoscopy, which revealed a voluminous pedunculated polyp that was recognized to be an inverted giant colonic diverticulum before endoscopic polypectomy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".