Association of human papilloma virus with atypical and malignant oral papillary lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine atypical and malignant papillary oral lesions for low- and high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and to correlate HPV infection with clinical and pathologic features. STUDY DESIGN: Sections of 28 atypical papillary lesions (APLs) and 14 malignant papillary lesions (MPLs) were examined for HPV by in situ hybridization and for p16 and MIB-1 by immunohistochemistry; 24 conventional papillomas were studied for comparison. RESULTS: Low-risk HPV was found in 10 of 66 cases, including 9 APLs and 1 papilloma. All low-risk HPV-positive cases showed suprabasilar MIB-1 staining, and the agreement was statistically significant (P < .0001). Diffuse p16 staining combined with high-risk HPV was not seen in any of the cases. A subset of HPV(-) APLs progressed to carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: Oral papillary lesions are a heterogeneous group. Low-risk HPV infection is associated with a subset of APLs with a benign clinical course. Potentially malignant APLs and MPLs are not associated with low- or high-risk HPV.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".