Oral lichen planus: a 4-year clinical follow-up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: This study aimed to examine oral lichen planus (OLP) cases histopathologically and cytologically, describe different clinical aspects of OLP manifestations, and associate different OLP clinical forms with self-reported oral health and with local and systemic risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with a referral diagnosis of OLP received biopsies. The histological evaluation assessed infiltration with lymphocytes, epithelial hyperplasia, and hyperkeratosis. Histology was used to validate the OLP diagnosis and to evaluate the malignant transformation of OLP lesions. Clinical manifestations of OLP and potential local oral environment-related risks were clinically assessed. Systemic risks were evaluated by a structured questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 133 patients with a histologically confirmed OLP diagnosis were followed. There were more females (N = 109) than males (N = 24) and the majority of patients were older than 50 years. The reticular form (45.1%) was the most prevalent clinical form followed by the erosive-ulcerative form (33.8%). The histological characteristics were most pronounced in the erosive-ulcerative form. Of the OLP cases, 2.3% had a malignant transformation. CONCLUSION: Reticular and erosive-ulcerative were the most prevalent OLP forms. There were more female than male OLP patients. Except for medication use, there were no statistically significant differences among different clinical OLP forms in either local or systemic risk factor distributions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".