Risk Factors for Oral Human Papillomavirus Infection in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
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: Oral human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is associated with oral cancer development. However, few epidemiologic investigations have focused on oral HPV prevalence in healthy individuals. The objective of this study was to provide updated information regarding oral HPV prevalence in patients without oral cancer worldwide. METHODS: We systematically reviewed 29 studies reporting the prevalence of oral HPV infection that included 22,756 subjects (10,124 males, 12,623 females, and nine unknown gender; age range 2 - 89 years) and were published from January 2012 to June 2015. RESULTS: The prevalence of overall HPV, low-risk type HPV, high-risk type HPV, and HPV16 in the reported cases was 5.5%, 2.2%, 2.7%, and 1.0%, respectively. The prevalence of overall HPV was considerably higher in males who had sex with males (12.2%) as compared to heterosexual males (4.7%) and females (2.9%). A meta-analysis was performed to elucidate significant risk factors for oral HPV infection, which revealed a significant statistical association for oral sex and smoking with oral HPV infection (odds ratio (OR): 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.51 - 2.39, P < 0.0001; OR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.32 - 3.43, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that sexual behavior and smoking are importantly related to oral HPV infection in healthy individuals.
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.
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 | 0.057 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.030 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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