Human papillomavirus: An unlikely etiologic factor in sinonasal inverted papilloma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Tenuous evidence has supported the hypothesis that sinonasal inverted papilloma (SNIP) arise from human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. To clarify the role of HPV in SNIP, all known HPV sub-types were evaluated by employing a robust polymerase chain reaction-based method in a wide variety of SNIPs from a single institution. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective surgical specimen tumor sample analysis. METHODS: HPV positivity among SNIP samples and those with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) were compared. Immunohistochemistry was used to quantify p16 (over)expression among tumors as a surrogate marker for HPV. RESULTS: HPV was detected in 10/76 (13%) SNIP specimens. Identified HPV subtypes included nononcogenic 6 and 11 (6/76, 8%) and oncogenic 16, 18, 45, 56 (4/76, 5%). There was no HPV positivity among SCC samples. Only 4/10 (40%) HPV + samples had > 75% p16 cell staining. CONCLUSION: HPV is not supported as an etiological driver of SNIP development or progression to SCC. The p16 biomarker is not a sensitive indicator of HPV positivity in SNIP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 2443-2447, 2018.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".