MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998814526 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-d-19-00259

Prognostic biomarkers for malignant transformation of oral potentially malignant disorders

2020· article· en· W2998814526 on OpenAlexaff
Fernanda Weber Mello, Gilberto Melo, Eliete Neves Silva Guerra, Saman Warnakulasuriya, Cathie Garnis, Elena Riet Corrêa Rivero

Bibliographic record

VenueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral Health Pathology and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMalignant transformationCancerData extractionIntensive care medicineOncologyMEDLINEPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to identify and systematically map the available evidence concerning the prognostic biomarkers for malignant transformation of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs), and to identify and analyze possible knowledge gaps in this field of literature. INTRODUCTION: It is hypothesized that diagnosis and treatment of oral cancer in its early stages may be the key to improving the prognosis and reducing treatment-related consequences. Oral potentially malignant disorders represent tissue alterations with a higher risk of malignant transformation compared to the normal mucosa. Therefore, the study of prognostic biomarkers for OPMD could represent new diagnosis and therapeutic targets and, consequently, contribute to the reduction of oral cancer burden worldwide. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Longitudinal studies investigating prognostic biomarkers regarding the malignant transformation of OPMD will be included. The initial OPMD diagnosis and the malignant transformation must have been confirmed by histopathological analysis. To achieve minimal heterogeneity, studies that assess biomarkers in other locations (blood, plasma or others) will be excluded. METHODS: Five electronic databases and three grey literature databases will be consulted. No restrictions regarding publication date will be applied. Only studies published in the Latin (Roman) alphabet, which comprises most of the European languages, will be included. Study selection will be performed by two authors in a two-phase process; if any disagreement arises, a third author will be consulted to make a final decision. Data extraction will be performed by two authors using a standardized extraction tool. The results will be described in details accordantly with the aims of this scoping review.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsSame topicOral Health Pathology and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207