Oral manifestations in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The oral manifestations of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) have been reported in the recent literature. Therefore, there has been growing interest in the characterization of the dento-osseous anomalies because they may precede colorectal cancer and may be used as a diagnostic marker. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the published evidence for what are the oral manifestations of FAP and their frequency in affected individuals. METHODS: The search was performed at Cochrane Library, EMBASE, LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published up to March 2015. A grey literature search was conducted through Google Scholar. Reference lists of the included articles and additional studies identified by expert were screened for potential relevant studies. The methodology of selected studies was evaluated using the risk of bias checklist of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. RESULTS: Twenty observational studies totalizing 1635 individuals affected by FAP met the inclusion criteria. Osseous, dental, and oral mucosa alterations were observed in FAP patients. The meta-analysis showed the frequency of osseous jaw lesions, and the dental anomalies were 65.35% and 30.48%, respectively, and two studies suggested that oral mucosa vascular density is a phenotypic manifestation in patients with FAP. Most of the studies were evaluated as moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The most frequent oral manifestation on FAP patients is osseous jaw alterations. In the future, well-designed studies are necessary to classify osseous and dental anomalies in order to demonstrate the true prevalence of each alteration separately.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".