Efficacy and safety of beta carotones in treatment of oral leukoplakia: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate effectiveness and safety of beta carotenes for the treatment of oral leukoplakia regarding clinical resolution and prevention of malignant transformation. Material and Methods: The systematic search was conducted in three electronic databases and the study’s selection was performed according to pre-set eligibility criteria. Four studies evaluating the efficacy of beta carotenes in oral leukoplakia compared to placebo were included in the review; three of which were assigned for quantitative analysis. Data were extracted, tabulated, quality assessed and statistically analyzed. Results: The meta-analysis revealed that when comparing clinical resolution the beta carotene group favored was favored compared to placebo, with statistically significant difference. However, a meta-analysis comparing beta carotene and placebo groups regarding malignant transformation as a primary outcome failed to show any significant benefit. Furthermore, results showed evidence of beta carotene safety. Conclusion: the overall quality of evidence about efficacy of beta carotene in oral leukoplakia treatment was not high. However, given the obvious safety of this agent, data suggests it could have a promising effect in clinical improvement of oral leukoplakia lesions. However, no evidence supporting its benefits in reducing risk of malignant transformation in these lesions was found. Therefore, further long term, well designed randomized clinical trials are highly recommended.
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 | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".