Photodynamic Therapy in Treatment of Oral Lichen Planus
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a relatively common chronic immunologic mucocutaneous disorder. Although there are many presenting treatments, some of them proved its failure. Recently, the use of photodynamic therapy (PDT) has been expanding due to its numerous advantages, as it is safe, convenient, and non-invasive and has toxic effect towards selective tissues. This article provides comprehensive review on OLP, its etiology, clinical features and recent non-pharmacological treatments. We also describe the topical PDT and its mechanisms. Our purpose was to evaluate the efficacy of PDT in treatment of OLP through collecting the data of the related clinical studies. We searched in PubMed website for the clinical studies that were reported from 2000 to 2014 using specific keywords: "photodynamic therapy" and "treatment of oral lichen planus". Inclusion criteria were English publications only were concerned. In the selected studies of photodynamic treatment, adult patients (more than 20 years) were conducted and the OLP lesions were clinically and histologically confirmed. Exclusion criteria were classical and pharmacological treatments of OLP were excluded and also the using of PDT on skin lesions of lichen planus. We established five clinical studies in this review where all of them reported improvement and effectiveness of PDT in treatment of OLP lesions. The main outcome of comparing the related clinical studies is that the photodynamic is considered as a safe, effective and promising treatment modality for OLP.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it