Exploring lay public and dental professional knowledge around HPV transmission via oral sex and oral cancer development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) has been associated with certain types of oropharyngeal cancers and yet, the level of knowledge that dental professionals and the lay public have in terms of HPV transmission, oral sexual activities, and oral cancer development needs exploration. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge held by practicing dental professionals as well as the lay public regarding Human Papillomavirus (HPV) transmission through oral sex and subsequent oropharyngeal cancer development. METHODS: Textual data were collected from a public forum with dental professionals in. Vancouver, who discussed the HPV-oral sex-oral cancer triad, and from survey data gathered from 212 lay public participants (also in Vancouver) who answered a 13-item questionnaire on the perceived risks of oral sex in terms of HPV infection and oropharyngeal cancer development. The data were analyzed statistically by age group, gender, and sexual orientation using descriptive statistics, while an ANOVA test was used to compare variation in the responses to the survey (p-value = 0.05). RESULTS: The forum engaged 46 health care professionals, many of whom were aware of the potential risks for head and neck cancer development due to HPV infection, while also questioning "how to effectively talk about HPV with patients." The survey revealed that 34.5% of the participants believed that oral sex is an activity with no or low risk for the transmission of HPV, while 84% of participants believed the same sexual practices were of low or no-risk for HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) transmission. Most participants (82%) never discussed oral sexual activities with their physicians or dentists/dental hygienists. CONCLUSIONS: The general public remains mostly unaware of the potential links between HPV infection and oropharyngeal cancer. Physicians and dental providers should discuss oral sexual practice with their patients to raise awareness.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".