Human papillomavirus and head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been suggested that the link between human papillomavirus (HPV) and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is specific to carcinoma of the tonsil. We systematically reviewed studies that tested for HPV16 exposure in anatomically defined sites in the head and neck and a control group. The association between HPV16 and cancer was strongest for tonsil (OR: 15.1, 95% CI: 6.8-33.7), intermediate for oropharynx (OR: 4.3, 95% CI: 2.1-8.9) and weakest for oral (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.2-3.4) and larynx (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.0-4.2). To investigate heterogeneity, further stratification by method of HPV16 detection, suggested that variation in the magnitude of the HPV-cancer association with cancer site was restricted to studies using ELISA: among studies using PCR, the magnitude of the summary odds ratios was similar across the four sites. The association between HPV16 infection and HNSCC in specific sites suggests the strongest and most consistent association is with tonsil cancer, and the magnitude of this association is consistent with an infectious aetiology. However, the method of viral detection may be an important source of heterogeneity. Resolution of this issue will require further studies using both methods, examining associations separately in different sites.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".