Bibliographic record
Abstract
An 86-year-old woman presented for initial evaluation after an abnormal positron emission tomography (PET) scan revealed activity in the sigmoid colon suggestive of malignancy. She had a medical history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with a recent lung nodule that was found to be malignant. As part of her workup, a PET scan was performed and the results prompted evaluation by a gastroenterologist. The patient had never undergone a colonoscopy and denied any gastrointestinal symptoms. Colonoscopy revealed a sessile polyp 1 cm in size in the cecum, which was removed by snare electrocautery. There was an additional 1 cm pedunculated polyp in the sigmoid colon; arising from the stalk of the pedunculated polyp was another sessile polyp 7 mm in size. There was a 1 cm segment of normal-appearing mucosa on the stalk separating the two polyps (Figure 1A). Both were removed by snare electrocautery at the base of the stalk. Figure 1) A Sigmoid polyp. B Adenocarcinoma with submucosal invasion. C Polypectomy site with negative margins. Hematoxylin and eosin stain, original magnification ×20 Pathology revealed the cecal polyp to be a tubular adenoma. The sigmoid polyp was a tubulovillous adenoma; the tumour emanating from the stalk was a low-grade, moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma with invasion into the submucosa (Figure 1B). There were negative margins within 1 mm of the polypectomy site, and no angiolymphatic or perineural invasion (Figure 1C). Immunostains were negative for transcription termination factor-1 and positive for CDX-2, which was consistent with a primary colorectal adenocarcinoma. The patient returned for follow-up and denied any complaints. She is scheduled to undergo a repeat colonoscopy in six months to ensure complete removal of the lesion. There have been studies determining the utility of a PET scan in detecting colon polyps. Often, patients undergo a PET scan as part of a malignancy workup and may incidentally have suspicious lesions apparent in the colon. This is due to increased glucose metabolism and fluorodeoxy glucose uptake in colon adenomas. Studies have suggested that the degree of uptake is proportional to the degree of dysplasia in an adenoma (1). Correlation with colonoscopic findings generally shows that polyps >10 mm in size have a higher detection rate on PET. The pathology of the polyps can include hyperplastic, tubular adenoma, tubulovillous adenoma and carcinoma (2). Uptake on PET scan can have a focal or nonfocal pattern. Nonfocal uptake often represents a physiological variant and can be a nonspecific finding. Review of the literature suggests that a focal pattern of colorectal uptake can be associated with a 65% chance of identifying a malignant or premalignant lesion (3).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.007 |
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".