The patterns and trends in e-cigarette consumption and use in Poland: one of the biggest markets in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveHuman papillomavirus (HPV) infection is a major risk factor for cervical cancer and may also be related to development of oral cancer.The objective of this study was to provide updated information regarding association between oral HPV prevalence and smoking in people without oral cancer. MethodsWe systematically reviewed 29 studies which reported the prevalence of oral HPV infection that included 22,756 subjects (age range 2-89 years) and were published from January 2012 to June 2015.Additionally, we investigated oral HPV16 prevalence by PCR using type specific primer in 256 patients who visited Hiroshima University Hospital from 2014 to 2018.The study design was approved by the Ethical Committee of Hiroshima University. ResultsThe prevalence of overall HPV was considerably higher in males who had sex with males (12.2%) as compared to heterosexual men (4.7%) and women (2.9%).A metaanalysis revealed a significant statistical association of sexual behavior and smoking with oral HPV infection (OR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.51-2.39,P <0.0001; OR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.32-3.43,P = 0.002, respectively).Men showed a significantly higher rate of HPV16 than females (P=0.021).In addition, female smokers showed an increased percentage of HPV16 infection as compared with male smokers, but there was no significant difference.The association of smoking with oral HPV prevalence may be stronger among women than men. ConclusionsOur findings suggest that smoking is importantly related to oral HPV infection.Local immunosuppressive effects of smoking may affect susceptibility to HPV infection and prolong the duration of virus infection in the oral cavity.These results imply that there would be a future potential risk factor and increase risk of oral and head and neck cancer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".