Endoscopic and clinical evaluation of treatment and prognosis of Cronkhite–Canada syndrome: a Japanese nationwide survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: First reported in 1955, Cronkhite-Canada syndrome (CCS), a rare syndrome characterized by ectodermal abnormalities and inflammatory changes of the gastrointestinal tract mucosa, has been associated with a poor prognosis and life-threatening malignant complications. In a large population survey, we endeavored to characterize the course and treatment outcome of CCS through clinical and endoscopic assessment, and to explore its optimal treatment and surveillance strategy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 210 patients with CCS was conducted via a questionnaire-based nationwide survey of 983 teaching hospitals located throughout Japan. We assessed clinical features, endoscopic findings, treatments used, and short- and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: The average age at diagnosis was 63.5 years. In all cases, upper or lower gastrointestinal tract polyposis was confirmed, accompanied by characteristic ectodermal abnormalities. Of the treatments used, oral corticosteroids (30-49 mg/day) were the most effective treatment for active disease, with adjunctive nutritional support considered beneficial. With corticosteroid treatment, abdominal symptoms were relieved within a few months, whereas polyp regression often required more than 6 months. Maintenance of endoscopic remission with or without steroids for 3 years significantly lowered the development of CCS-related cancer, compared with relapsers or nonresponders, underscoring the importance of sustained endoscopic remission for cancer prevention. CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis of CCS has greatly improved through the use of improved medical treatment. Although CCS continues to be relentlessly progressive, carrying a high cancer risk, a sufficient dose and duration of corticosteroid therapy accompanied by nutritional support and periodic endoscopic surveillance appears to improve its natural history.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".