Association of human papillomavirus with denture wearing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine the prevalence of human papillomavirus in the oral cavity of denture wearers. METHODS: Swabs were collected from 72 denture wearers and 72 controls (non-denture wearers) to obtain DNA. Amplification of the β-globin gene was performed by polymerase chain reaction to check the integrity of extracted DNA. The presence of human papillomavirus in the DNA sample was detected by nested polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: The prevalence of human papillomavirus was found to be significantly higher in the oral cavity of denture wearers (38/72, 52.8%) than in the controls (17/72, 23.6%; odds ratio = 3.612, confidence interval = 1.771/7.385, P = <0.001). When adjusted for variables, including age, sex, ethnicity, and smoking habit, human papillomavirus was still found to be significantly associated with denture wearing, with an adjusted odds of 3.2 (P = 0.008). No association of human papillomavirus positivity was found with denture variables, including denture type, denture material type, duration of denture wearing, and denture hygiene (P > 0.05). Low-risk human papillomavirus types were found to be more frequent in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of human papillomavirus in the oral cavity of denture wearers was found to be significantly higher compared to controls; however, it was mainly low-risk types.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".