Dysplasia Should Not Be Ignored in Lichenoid Mucositis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral lichen planus is categorized as a potentially malignant condition by the World Health Organization; however, some argue that only lichen planus with dysplasia have malignant potential. Many pathologists call lichen planus with dysplasia "dysplasia with lichenoid mucositis (LM)" or "LM with dysplasia." Previous research has shown that certain high-risk patterns of loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in dysplastic lesions are associated with significantly increased cancer risk. However, LM without dysplasia lacks such molecular patterns, supporting the hypothesis that LM, by itself, is not potentially malignant and that only those with dysplasia have malignant potential. To further investigate the premalignant nature of LM with dysplasia, this study compared the rate of malignant progression of dysplasia with LM with that of dysplasia without LM. Patients from a population-based prospective cohort study with >10 y of follow-up were analyzed. Study eligibility included a histological diagnosis of a primary low-grade dysplasia with or without LM. A total of 446 lesions in 446 patients met the selection criteria; 373 (84%) were classified as dysplasia without LM, while 73 (16%) were classified as dysplasia with LM. Demographic and habit information, clinical information, and outcome (progression) were compared between the 2 groups. Forty-nine of 373 cases of dysplasia (13%) progressed compared to 8% (6/73) of dysplasia with LM. However, the difference was not statistically different ( P = 0.24). The 3- and 5-y rate of progression did not differ between the groups (6.7% and 12.5% for dysplasia without LM and 2.9% and 6.6% for those with LM; P = 0.36). Progression was associated with nonsmoking, location at a high-risk site, and diagnosis of moderate dysplasia regardless of whether LM was present or not. Dysplasia with or without LM had similar cancer risk, and dysplasia should not be discounted in the presence of LM.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".