Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Retinoids have been studied as chemopreventive treatment for patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma. Vitamin A modulates growth and differentiation of cells, and its deficiency enhances susceptibility to carcinogenesis. The chemopreventive mechanism of action of vitamin A is discussed, and a review of clinical results and side effects of the systemic use of vitamin A is included. The objective of the current report was to review the possible role of topical vitamin A and vitamin A derivatives in the management of patients with oral lesions with a risk of transformation to carcinoma. METHODS: A Medline search was conducted and references identified within the identified papers were also reviewed. RESULTS: Only four studies using topical vitamin A for patients with oral leukoplakia have been reported. A complete response was achieved in 10-27% of patients, and a partial response was achieved in 54-90% of patients; however, recurrence of leukoplakia was reported after withdrawing the medication in approximately 50% of patients. The side effects of the topical use were minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Although the direct application of higher concentrations of retinoic acid results in suppression of oral leukoplakias only, its use in the treatment of patients with recurrent and persistent lesions may be justified for controlling lesions that otherwise may progress. Further controlled clinical studies are needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".