Efficacy of Chemiluminescence (ViziLite™) as a Screening Method in the Detection of Clinically Suspicious Oral Cancerous and Precancerous Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several screening techniques based on light interaction with tissue have been described to aid clinicians in the detection of early oral cancerous lesions. One of the most studied techniques is chemiluminescence. This method has been used in different studies but always by Oral Medicine specialists. Objective: To evaluate the chemiluminescence system as a screening method in the detection of clinically suspicious cancerous and precancerous oral lesions when used by clinicians without an Oral Medicine Speciality. Study Design: A total of 100 patients attending the Oral Medicine Unit at the Dental School of the University of Seville were enrolled. All patients were current smokers and were above the age of 40. The clinical examination was performed by dental students who were instructed in the location and recognition of potentially malignant oral disorders, using visual examination and the chemiluminescence test ViziLite Plus (Zila Pharmaceuticals, Phoenix, AZ, USA). To assess the validity of the chemiluminescence test as a screening method, a visual exam was performed by a specialist in Oral Medicine which was used as a gold-standard. Results: Conventional oral visual examination by the Oral Medicine Specialist found 13 lesions suspicious for malignancy, out of which 7 were also detected using the chemiluminescence test. Furthermore, 87 patients were diagnosed as lesion-free, of which 49 obtained negative results during the chemiluminescence test and 38 patients had some sort of lesion. With these results, the test yielded a sensitivity of 0.56 and a specificity of 0.56. These results indicate values similar to other studies, in fact lower sensitivity values, possibly due to the lack of experience of the clinician. Conclusions: The chemiluminescence test (ViziLite Plus) did not present any advantages in terms of cost-benefit compared to conventional examination as a screening method for cancerous and precancerous oral lesions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".