Involvement of Viral and Chemical Factors with Oral Cancer in Taiwan
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and viral and chemical factors is uncertain. Therefore the correlation of viral and chemical factors with oral cancer in Taiwan was investigated. METHODS: Thirty-seven paraffin-embedded oral cancer biopsies and 36 normal oral tissue specimens were examined by the polymerase chain reaction method for six viruses: HPV, CMV, EBV, HSV-1, HSV-2 and HHV-8. To elucidate the role of arecoline in the oncogenesis of oral cancer, human buccal fibroblasts, oral submucosal fibroblasts and three cancer cell lines KB, GNM and TSCCa were used for MTT cytotoxity assay and flow cytometry DNA content analysis. RESULTS: Two (5.4%) HSV-1-positive and four (10.8%) HPV-positive cases were recognized in oral cancer biopsies. Among the four HPV-positive tissues, two were further typed as HPV-16, one was identified as HPV-18- and HSV-1-positive; and one contained both HPV-16 and HPV-18. One sample presented HSV-1 only. Arecoline, at a concentration lower than 0.8 micro g/ml, increased cell growth (all cell types); at higher concentrations (25-400 micro g/ml) it was cytotoxic. The cell cycle was demonstrated to be altered either by low or high concentrations of arecoline treatment, depending on the cells treated. CONCLUSIONS: The data demonstrated that HPV, HSV-1 and betel quid chewing were significantly associated with OSCC, but HSV-2, CMV, EBV and HHV-8 were not. We suggest that the most determinative factor for oral cancer may be chemical in nature rather than viral infection.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it