Outcomes of invitational and opportunistic oral cancer screening initiatives in <scp>O</scp>porto, <scp>P</scp>ortugal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of oral cancer screening for the early detection of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) and oral cancer (OC) in a population of Oporto city. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted an OC screening program in the city of Oporto between 2010 and 2011 using two methodologies of population recruitment: Volunteers attending an OC screening day recruited via a mass media campaign; and OC screening during dental visits to a public hospital in the Oporto City. Participants' socio-demographic information and life-style habits were ascertained by interviewers, and an oral mucosal examination (screen) was conducted by previously trained and calibrated group of 20 screeners. RESULTS: A total of 727 individuals (277 males and 450 females) with a mean age of 54 years (range 18-94) were screened. During screening, we detected 22 OPMDs: 13 (59.1%) oral leukoplakias and 9 (40.9%) cases with oral lichen planus. No erythroplakias were detected. In addition, two oral carcinomas were detected, both in the T1 stages of the disease. All screen positives attended a specialist clinic following referral to confirm their diagnoses. A randomly selected sample among negative screens was also examined to assess any false negatives. The sensitivity was 96% and specificity was 98%. Significantly more positive cases were found among older individuals (≥54 years) (P = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Screening data suggest that new cancers and OPMDs can be detected by invitational and opportunistic screening and offer a platform to raise the awareness and knowledge on this cancer in the Portuguese population.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".